Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KINGSTON UPON HULL BILL [LORDS]

As amended, considered.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Alexandra Park and Palace Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That the Instruction [21st March] to the Committee on the Bill be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament;

Ordered,
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

HEREFORD CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Hereford City Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave, except as provided by these Orders, to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if

they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the suspension of other proceedings on the Bill, Standing Order 171A(1) shall apply to the presenting of Petitions against the Bill brought from the Lords in the present Session and only Petitions presented under this Order shall be received as petitions presented under Standing Order 171A(1);

Ordered,
That any Petitions presented under the foregoing Order shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session.

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Worcester City Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave, except as provided by these Orders, to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the suspension of other proceedings on the Bill, Standing Order 171A(1) shall apply to the presenting of Petitions against the Bill brought from the Lords in the present Session and only Petitions presented under this Order shall be received as Petitions presented under Standing Order 171A(1).

Ordered,
That any Petitions presented under the foregoing Order shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session.

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Petrol and Diesel Fuel (Prices)

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he had with oil companies prior to the latest increase in petrol and diesel prices.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Product price increases are a commercial matter for the oil companies.

Mr. McQuarrie: That was a short and sharp reply, but does my right hon. Friend accept that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to put 6p on the taxation of petrol, which seriously affected the rural areas, it should not be outwith the bounds of possibility for the Department of Energy, under the Secretary of State's control, to discuss with the oil companies the ever-escalating cost of petrol in the rural areas? It is having a devastating effect on employment, and my constituents and I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to take action, if possible, to seek reductions in petrol rather than continual increases.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that my hon. Friend has always been extremely active in this area, but he will agree —he and I represent the same part of Scotland—that there is considerable competition. I think he will be reassured to know that the Director-General of Fair Trading maintains a review of what is happening in the market. I am sure that he is aware of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while higher prices bring more revenue, lower prices reduce costs in all parts of the economy? Does he further agree that, in the rural areas, where we do not have reasonably priced fuel, there will be more depopulation and less industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am very much aware of the problems in the rural areas, but the recent increases were very much related to what is happening in the crude oil market, and I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that.

Mr. Rowlands: May we have a fuller explanation of the Government's position on oil prices? On the one hand North sea oil prices are being cut, yet we are draining that oil at a mad pace, and on the other we seem to be on our prayer mats, praying that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries will cut production and keep prices up. Do the Government want lower oil prices in general, or do they want OPEC to succeed in artificially keeping prices up?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have read the minute that was submitted to the House last week in relation to the British National Oil Corporation.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the coalmining industry.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coal strike.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the National Union of Miners to discuss the future of the coal industry.

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the present dispute in the coalmining industry.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the coal strike.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Since I made a statement to the House on 22 October 1984, talks have taken place at ACAS between the National Coal Board and NACODS. After detailed negotiations covering a range of issues on which the NACODS executive had expressed concern, an agreement was reached between the National Coal Board and NACODS. The executive of NACODS unanimously supported this agreement and, as a result, the threat of industrial action was withdrawn.
More than 70,000 employed by the Coal Board remain at work and I fear that the main damage being inflicted by this dispute is damage to the coal industry itself, to miners' families and to mining communities.
Talks will continue this week at ACAS between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The Government believe that it would be in the interests of the coal industry if those negotiating for that proportion of the NUM members who have pursued industrial action would recognise, as NACODS has recognised, the good and reasonable proposals that are available.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but does he not agree that the House of Commons is owed a fuller explanation of what is happening at NCB headquarters, Hobart House, as it has just been announced that Mr. Eaton has been sent packing? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been talk about resignations and even sackings which can be traced back to the presence of Mr. Ian MacGregor at NCB headquarters? The right hon. Gentleman likes to talk about a policy of non-intervention, but is it not time that he took a grip of the situation, intervened publicly and told Mr. MacGregor, whatever he thinks happened over the weekend, that the strategy of starving striking miners into submission will not succeed and that only a principled and negotiated settlement can end this costly and damaging industrial dispute?

Mr. Walker: In view of the rumours that were circulating in the House just before Question Time I contacted the NCB and I confirm that Mr. Eaton, happily, remains in his duties. He very much agrees with the decision to cancel certain press engagements today while the situation following the disclosures at the weekend is being examined. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman once again.
On the main issue and the request for Government intervention, perhaps the Opposition will disclose whether they consider that the patient and detailed talks conducted under ACAS by NACODS last week produced an unreasonable settlement or a reasonable one. If it was the latter, I hope that the Opposition will support it.

Mr. Adley: It is no surprise that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said nothing about the extraordinary Libyan fiasco. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this has


shown Mr. Scargill to be an even more evil man than his sternest critics had imagined? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NACODS agreement offers a far better opportunity of settlement for the miners—the people in whom we should be interested—than anything that might come from Libya? Finally, does my right hon. Friend imagine that this is the first time that the Bishop of Durham and Colonel Gaddafi have been on the same side?

Mr. Walker: In fairness, the disclosures of last weekend have resulted in the Leader of the Opposition very firmly condemning that attempt by certain NUM leaders. One cannot say that it was the NUM leadership as a whole, as most of the executive were not aware that the negotiations were taking place. I very much agree with the Leader of the Opposition in his condemnation. Some of the people involved attempted to suggest that it was simply obtaining a collection from fellow trade unionists in Libya, but Mr. Salem Ibrahim, whom Mr. Scargill and Mr. Windsor met in Paris on 8 October, is certainly not noted for his trade union activities. Mr. Mumtaz Abbasi, who accompanied Mr. Roger Windsor from Tripoli last week, is also not noted for his trade union activities. Among other things, he is a grocer, but his activities there are nothing compared with his activities elsewhere.
What we have seen over the weekend is that those who provide funds for terrorist activities throughout Europe have been negotiating unbeknown to the executive of the NUM, but very well known to some of the leaders of the NUM. I very much welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has condemned this and I hope that the whole House will do the same.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people will not be impressed with the fact that he is more willing to answer at length parliamentary questions on the Libyan connection than on the industrial dispute itself? Why will the right hon. Gentleman not advise the NCB to table the "Plan for Coal" as the basis for a settlement?

Mr. Walker: Negotiations have taken place under the auspices of ACAS. ACAS made a proposal to both the NUM and the NCB, which the NCB accepted and the NUM turned down. The NCB then began detailed negotiations with NACODS and the resulting settlement was supported unanimously by the executive of NACODS. The hon. Gentleman should ask himself what Mr. Scargill's motive can be in continuing, after all that, to do such enormous damage to the coal industry, the miners and the mining communities.

Sir William van Straubenzee: In view of the unpleasant developments on some of the picket lines, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it was really only money that some of the NUM leadership was after when it went to Libya? Does my right hon. Friend understand that these new revelations have strengthened the resolve of the vast majority of the British people to take whatever may come in the way of inconvenience and difficulty in order to see the dispute through to a successful conclusion?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I believe that the British people were very suspicious of a leader who refused to hold a ballot when one third of his members who held a ballot voted decisively against strike action. They have heard from his own lips Mr. Scargill's complete commitment to overthrowing the type of system to which we have become accustomed in this country, and the latest disclosures this weekend have certainly aroused deep suspicions.
As to picket line violence, Mr. Scargill spoke this weekend about taking the Government to court about the £15 disallowance because no money is now available for strike pay for miners' families. However, members of the NUM know full well that he has not paid strike pay to miners' families. He has used the funds to finance the mobs.

Mr. Knox: Does not the disclosure of the contact between Mr. Scargill and Colonel Gaddafi show once again the political nature of the strike? Does my right hon. Friend suppose that Mr. Scargill knows how trade unionists are treated in Libya?

Mr. Walker: Anyone who has studied trade unions in Libya will know full well that there is no free trade union movement in Libya, that there is no right to strike in Libya and that recently there have been vast numbers of public executions in Libya.
It is a rather interesting reflection upon the connection with free trade unions that Mr. Scargill should seek the support of trade unions in Libya but is on record as saying that he is opposed to Solidarity because he believes it to be an anti-Socialist organisation whose desire is to overthrow the Socialist state.

Dr. Owen: The repugnance that the country feels over the NUM's links with Libya is now boiling up to a point where people feel that enough is enough. Will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what the negotiations at ACAS later this week will be about? Are not perfectly honourable settlement terms, accepted by NACODS, now on the table? Those terms should not be changed in any way, and the TUC and the Labour party should say that they wish to accept them. There should be no question of negotiation. Clarification perhaps, but no more negotiation.

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir, I agree with the right lion. Gentleman. There is to be a meeting at ACAS on Wednesday because of the meetings that took place last week. ACAS finally asked both sides to put their position in writing, because there was some confusion about the position of the NUM on a number of issues. I understand that the NCB will clearly state in writing the basis of the agreement that it has reached with NACODS. I presume that the NUM will continue to state the wholly unreasonable and unwarranted demand, which it has made since the beginning of the dispute, that every pit should remain open. There is no doubt that a decent deal has been done with NACODS, and that should be the basis of an agreement.

Mr. Barron: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he has just said, as I understand that the NUM has never said that every pit should remain open? Three categories were drawn up in the negotiations under which some pits, even those with coal, would close. Exactly what is going on? Is the right hon. Gentleman like the NCB, which seems to know little about what is happening, even in negotiations?

Mr. Walker: Time and again — before and after every talk — Mr. Scargill has made it clear to miners that he will not tolerate the closure of any pit on economic grounds. That demand is utterly unreasonable. No Labour Government have ever conceded it and no previous leader


of the NUM has ever demanded it. That is why many of us believe that Mr. Scargill has demanded it only to keep the conflict going.

Mr. Hardy: Although I share the general distaste for Libya, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present oppressive social security regulations are scarcely designed to inculcate patriotic fervour in the coalfields? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on a matter that should come within his responsibilities—the decision concerning Mr. Eaton? Does he agree that the decision suggests to close observers that the NCB will now resume the somewhat inaccurate, often clumsy and always infuriating style of disinformation which infuriated my association, NACODS, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred? May we take it that the dismissal of Mr. Eaton will not plunge us back into disarray?

Mr. Walker: I can confirm that there is no dismissal of Mr. Eaton.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the coalminers' strike has been considered in the High Court and been found illegal? Is he prepared to act to ensure that the public are safeguarded? Is he also prepared to act against Mr. Scargill, as that might be in the country's interest?

Mr. Walker: Decisions on legal actions for an offence are not matters for me. The way in which the police have stopped the mobs closing steelworks, power stations and working collieries is a great tribute to them and a great condemnation of those who have organised the mobs.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the NCB, through its subsidiary Compower, in Cannock, has trained Libyans for many years, and that there is a contract between Libyan airlines and British Airways? Is it not odiously hypocritical for the Conservative party to raise this matter when President Botha and almost every other reactionary dictatorship in the world is always welcome at No. 10 Downing street? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the dispute rather than the slurs?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman's blistering attack on the Leader of the Opposition, who has vigorously condemned this action.

Mr. Benn: He does not support Botha or the Chileans.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman's views are probably best explained by the remarkable interview that he gave on the first day of the Labour party conference to his favourite newspaper, the Morning Star. He said:
I do not believe the Labour Party has a future unless it comes to terms properly and finally with Marxism. Unless you are prepared to take on board his tremendous contribution, you are always going to have an element of the party that could float off into the SDP.

Mr. Benn: Answer the question.

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman's encouraging the NUM to link with Colonel Gaddafi will result in a few more floating off.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing evidence that thousands of miners, especially those in Yorkshire, the north-east, south Wales and Scotland, do not understand and know the details of the NCB's offer? If the talks fail on Wednesday, will he ensure that the Coal Board makes it absolutely clear, so that every miner knows exactly what is on offer?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made absolutely clear our views on the Libyan position. I fully endorse them. We want to see the dispute resolved.
The Secretary of State mentioned the NACODS' agreement, of which I have a copy here. It is qualified on a number of vital issues, including the 6 March proposals and the closure of the five pits. Those closure proposals have not been withdrawn, nor have the 6 March proposals. Will the Secretary of State, therefore, now urge the Coal Board to negotiate on the basis of the "Plan for Coal" and the proposals already submitted to ACAS? Furthermore, will he now give an answer about the extraordinary case of Mr. Michael Eaton? It needs to be fully explained to the House. Will he tell us the truth? Did Mr. Eaton resign this morning? Was he replaced? What is the position?

Mr. Walker: I am informed that Mr. Eaton has not resigned. In the coal mining industry, one union, the British Association of Colliery Management has never supported industrial action, NACODS, after patient negotiation, has reached an agreement which is backed fully by its executive, and one third of the NUM membership, in accordance with the NUM's normal tradition, held a ballot and voted decisively against strike action. The Labour party and the Trades Union Congress must decide whether they are on the side of BACM, NACODS and one third of the miners, or on the side of Arthur Scargill.

Coal Stocks

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the present level of coal stocks.

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the level of coal stocks.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current stocks of coal.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest assessment of coal stocks.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on coal stocks.

Mr. Peter Walker: The latest official published figures are for stocks of coal on 26 August. These show total stocks of 39·18 million tonnes, of which 15·5 million tonnes were at power stations.

Mr. Yeo: In view of that satisfactory position, will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those miners who continue to work in the face of grave intimidation and violence? Does he agree that it is in no small measure due to their efforts that the country can face the winter months with a fair degree of equanimity?

Mr. Walker: I pay tribute to those miners who, having voted to work, have worked in spite of appalling intimidation from mobs at their colliery gates. I also pay tribute to all those involved in the electricity industry and in the distribution of coal and fuel for the way in which they have ensured that the stocks at our power stations are as strong as they are.

Mr. Leigh: If my right hon. Friend can confirm the rumour today that since figures were last published in


August the position regarding coal stocks has improved and not worsened, will he also confirm that that may have resulted in Mr. Scargill's increasingly desperate forays for support from any cause, however vile? Will he confirm that there will be no further concessions to Mr. Scargill, which would enable him to claim a victory and deal a potentially fatal blow against the Government's historic mission to get more realistic actions among trade unionists?

Mr. Walker: Regarding my hon. Friend's last point, from the beginning of the dispute there has never been any justification for industrial action. There has been a good wage offer, a guarantee that no person will be made compulsorily unemployed, major investment and a community programme which has never previously been put forward. There has never been industrial justification for the strike. That is why those miners who decided to ballot voted against the strike. As to the negotiations, it is the view of the Government and the National Coal Board that the agreement made with NACODS is fair and reasonable and is the one upon which a settlement will be reached, if it is reached at all.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this question is about the level of coal stocks.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. In the event of the NUM leadership seeking to protract the dispute further by its appalling tactics of intimidation, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that all steps will be taken to move stocks of coal to where they are needed before there is any question of power cuts, which would in any event harm the more vulnerable members of society?

Mr. Walker: I categorically give that assurance; and my hon. Friend will know, from the decisive vote of the electricians at the power stations, how passionately they are opposed to any damage being done to jobs or to the economy by power cuts.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there a contingency plan to use troops for the movement of coal?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I am delighted to say that the movement of coal is so splendid and good, and coal stocks are going so well, that no such move has been contemplated.

Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that coal stocks would be even higher and prices lower if we had a more robust private sector able to compete with the nationalised monopoly? Will he urgently review the role of the opencast mining industry and of the private sector mining industry?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, the private sector already plays a considerable part in the opencast mining industry. I confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that there are no plans for privatisation. However, there could be vast improvements in productivity in this industry.

Mr. Mason: Will the Secretary of State explain how coal stocks have been assisted by increasing coal imports, especially with new contracts that have been established during the past six months?

Mr. Walker: As far as I know, no imports have gone to power stations, but there has been a substantial increase

in coal imports. Such is the solidarity of the working classes that much of the coal is Polish and has been transported in Russian ships.

Mr. Wallace: As the present level of coal stocks is in some way due to the amount of oil that has been used to replace coal during the past six months, at a greater cost, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that the additional cost will not be passed on to domestic or industrial consumers under what has been called a Scargill surcharge?

Mr. Walker: It is impossible to calculate the cost until we know the amount of stocks remaining when the dispute ends. A range of calculations must be made. One could mention the increased cost of oil, but, alas for the coal industry, £700 million capital investment that would have been made this year has not been made. It is a complicated sum that can be considered only when the dispute is over.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Secretary of State confirm, or deny, that three working collieries in the Nottinghamshire area—Sherwood, Mansfield and Clipstone—which are contributing so greatly to the coal stocks which he applauds today, will be closed as soon as the strike has ended if the financial formula adopted by Mr. MacGregor is put into action? Will he confirm that the pits of the working scabs will be closed as soon as the strike is over?

Mr. Concannon: That is not true.

Mr. Walker: I certainly do not confirm that. It is remarkable that someone who abides by the normal NUM tradition of balloting before a strike should be described as a scab.

Mr. Orme: May I return to the question of resolving this dispute so that we need not concern ourselves about coal stocks? Will the Secretary of State answer my question as to whether the NACODS agreement was qualified and whether, if that union returned to ACAS with the NUM, an agreement could be negotiated?

Mr. Walker: The NACODS agreement rightly and clearly stated that any pit that must be closed in future, including the five, must go through the normal processes. I confirm the view of the Government and of the National Coal Board that what has been agreed with NACODS should be, and is, the basis of a good agreement. When this strike is ended on a sensible and sane agreement, I hope that it will be recognised that Mr. Scargill's activities throughout the dispute have done enormous damage to the coal industry, impoverished the NUM, put miners' families into debt, divided miners' communities and damaged the Labour party and the TUC. That is the reality of this strike.

Onshore Oil Production

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total production of onshore oil in 1983; and what is the estimated figure for 1984.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Onshore oil production in 1983 was 324,280 tonnes. I expect 1984 to be around 340,000 to 380,000 tonnes.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that onshore oil is an important and cheap source of fuel for the United Kingdom? Although there are understandable fears on environmental grounds,


does he accept that my knowledge of Wytch Farm and onshore oil in Lincolnshire shows that the oil companies take very great trouble to meet local fears? Will his Department make certain that those efforts are known and that the success which attends them is also widely understood and accepted?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Many of these developments take place with proper regard to the environment, and no development approval is given without the application having gone through the full planning procedures and received planning approval. There is no doubt that in those areas where development has taken place it has added to the economy.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that there has been considerable concern about the lack of consultation, particularly in relation to licences in the Southampton Water and Solent area? Will he look again at the way in which consultation between local planning authorities and the Department of Energy should be conducted?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have already introduced new onshore licensing procedures which, because they allow for consultation, have been broadly welcomed by all the interests concerned, including environmental interests. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I never proceed on any of these issues without considerable consultations. I have done that in relation to all those exploration and development approvals with which I have been associated.

Coal Industry

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss investment in the coal industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss many issues, including the very substantial investment the Government are making in the coal industry.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Government's disastrous unemployment record has failed to provide alternative employment in mining areas and has led miners and their families stoutly and vigorously to defend their communities? As the Government's policies will not reduce unemployment in the foreseeable future, will the right hon. Gentleman now take steps to redress the balance between the older mining areas and the newer coalfields? In doing so will he recognise that the recent policy statement about NCB enterprise areas is feeble and will not even begin to meet the problems facing the miners?

Mr. Walker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The enterprise company, at its first meeting, will be announcing its board and range of activities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be a lively and active organisation which will do a great deal.
As to jobs and unemployment, it is a tragedy that, when the Government are prepared to invest £700 million a year, many of those who would have been employed in providing that investment have been made unemployed this year. It is also a great tragedy that markets for the coal industry, which would have provided jobs for miners in the future, have been lost as a result of this industrial dispute.

Coal Conversion Scheme

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest position of the coal conversion scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): Since the scheme's inception, 636 applications have been received. However, 242 applications have subsequently been withdrawn, including 117 since the state of industrial action by the NUM. Had the current strike not taken place, I believe that more than 1,000 firms would have converted to coal this year.

Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on his appointment to the Front Bench. Does his reply not show the disastrous effect of this strike on coal demand and make it clear to everyone, including the Opposition Front Bench, that the original "Plan for Coal" targets for coal demand have been destroyed by the action of Mr. Scargill and his strike?

Mr. Hunt: I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks and share his concern. Those of us on both sides of the House who care about the long-term future of our great coal industry are angry about the damage that is being done by this sad and unnecessary dispute, and the damage that it is causing to future markets for coal.

Waste (Recycling)

Mr. Rowe: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department is involved in any initiative to encourage the recycling of waste to create energy.

Mr. David Hunt: My Department has already spent over £500,000 on research and development in this area and has committed a further £4·5 million to demonstration projects on refuse-derived fuels and waste combustion. We are also collaborating with the United States on research and development into the use of wastes as fuel under the bilateral memorandum of understanding signed by my right hon. Friend and the United States Secretary of Energy, Donald Hodel, on 18 October.

Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give an assurance that where local authorities have schemes for using this method of heating his Department will consider grant-aiding the technology required?

Mr. Hunt: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Office Accommodation

Mr. Proctor: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many offices exist in the Palace of Westminster for (a) Members of Parliament, (b) Officers of the House of Commons and (c) secretaries of Members of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): In the Palace of Westminster there are 252 offices for Members of Parliament, and 38 for Officers of the House.
Members' private secretaries occupy the lower ground floor and two other rooms.

Mr. Proctor: If it is felt necessary that there should be more accommodation, may I ask whether my right hon.


Friend has given any consideration—if it is not sold off as a hotel—to the use of County hall as an ancillary parliamentary building?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there will be many speculative ideas on the future of County hall. I have not turned my mind to them.

Sitting Times

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many hours the House has sat after midnight since his answer of 23 July, Official Report, column 467.

Mr. Biffen: The House has sat for a further 19 hours after midnight since my answer of 23 July.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that by the end of this Session the House will have sat for a total of 174 hours after midnight? Will he comment on that record? What initiatives does he propose to take through the Procedure Committee to see that we do better and have our business taken at a more sensible, efficient and pragmatic time of the day next Session?

Mr. Biffen: I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's calculations. I invite him to offer his discontent and remedies to the Procedure Committee. However, there is a formidable record of the House trying to devise one method or another to avoid the situation that he has outlined. So far, such efforts have been unsuccessful; but at least we are a long way from a sitting lasting 41½ hours, which took place in Gladstone's Parliament of 1887.

Mr. McWilliam: Would the Lord Privy Seal be as interested as I am in knowing during how many of those hours hon. Members of the alliance parties assisted us in getting through the business of the House on the Floor of the House and in Committees?

Mr. Biffen: I shall say no, and play safe.

Mr. Latham: If we sat after midnight tonight or tomorrow night, would that allow the Government time to tell the House what they are doing to relieve the Ethiopia disaster?

Mr. Biffen: I assure my hon. Friend that even if such comments are not made today or tomorrow, there will be an early opportunity to discuss this important topic.

Parliamentary Recesses

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give fresh consideration to the timing of parliamentary recesses.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate an inquiry on the question of the organisation of the calendar for the parliamentary year, with the main objective of changing and reducing the length of the summer recess.

Mr. Biffen: This is already within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure, and I would not propose to initiate any separate inquiry. As regards the detailed arrangements for recesses, I shall continue to do what I can to meet the general wishes of the House.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Would it not be conformable with our traditions, of which my right hon. Friend is the custodian, if one of our recesses were based on Whitsun, as formerly, as two other recesses are based on Christmas and Easter?

Mr. Biffen: The choice is between a recess based on the spring bank holiday or the ecclesiastical Whitsun. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure to what extent has the general support of the House.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that it is increasingly absurd and indefensible for the House to go away for 12 weeks between July and October when we are suffering from what is a virtual dictatorship which becomes even more detestable and indefensible when we are way for 12 weeks?

Mr. Biffen: I rather like the 12 weeks away.
The 1977–78 Procedure Committee considered timing and concluded that there should be no fundamental change in the overall pattern of the Session.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more hon. Members could spend longer in their constituencies than the 12 weeks that are presently allocated, since the summer recess is a particularly good time to work harder in the constituencies than we sometimes do here?

Mr. Biffen: If that is my hon. Friend's interpretation of his activities, who am I to disagree?

Mr. Bruce: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), will the Lord Privy Seal acknowledge that those of us who represent Scottish constituencies have to sit for a full month of the Scottish school holidays? For the last recess, Parliament rose only a week before the Scottish schools returned. Is it not reasonable that the House should take account of that?

Mr. Biffen: I agree with that point. Consistent with the findings of the 1977–78 Procedure Committee, any Leader of the House would always wish that we should rise as early in July as possible.

Public Gallery (Enlargement)

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will ask the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to enlarge the Gallery space available to strangers.

Mr. Biffen: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Has the Lord Privy Seal observed how much of the Gallery space remains habitually empty at Question Time, while the queues to come in remain vast, and that Members' guests cannot obtain admission without a completely ridiculous queueing system which is wrong and irritating? Is his reticence about opening up other spaces which are not required due to understandable and new security arrangements? If not, why is that the case?

Mr. Biffen: I was rather impressed by the letter sent by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to the hon. and learned Gentleman on that topic. I do not believe that there is a great general demand for altering our present arrangements for the Strangers Gallery. In the light of the security considerations, I should have thought that there would be even more concern to move cautiously.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to reach a wider audience, rather than enlarge the Gallery, we should televise the proceedings of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I could not hear myself answer that question because of the noise.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Lord Privy Seal prepared to encourage further facilities for the disabled, particularly those with guide dogs, for whom the facilities are extremely meagre?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is a fair parliamentarian, and I am sure he will realise that accommodation has recently been set up for those visiting the House with guide dogs. We should see what demand there is for that facility before considering any further developments.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not part of the truth of the matter that, with ever more Select Committees visiting ever more places, many of our colleagues simply pocket tickets and forget about them during activities away from the House? Would it not be more sensible at least to try for a month a scheme where people who genuinely want tickets could submit a request for them to the Serjeant at Arms and see how that works? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is right to say that time and again the Gallery is half empty, yet there are huge queues.

Mr. Biffen: The matter has only recently been considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, and I feel that I am entitled to rest with its findings for a while.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is not the reform of the House of Commons in its entirety long overdue? At present, does it not fully deserve the title of the most ineffective legislature in Western Europe? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot relate that to the question. I do not know whether the Lord Privy Seal can.

Mr. Biffen: The answer to the first part of the question is no. As someone who has flown here from the Strasbourg Assembly, the hon. Lady can judge ineffectiveness.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ethnic Monitoring

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister for Civil Service whether he has made a decision concerning future ethnic monitoring surveys.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): As I said in the House on 23 July, a decision on future surveys would be taken as soon as possible, but clarification of the union position is still awaited.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that the pilot schemes on ethnic monitoring reveal unacceptable discrimination in the Civil Service in both appointments and promotions? I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares the Opposition view that such discrimination is unworthy and that the Government must set a good example, so when does he expect to report progress in other areas of the Civil Service?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's contentions, which are based on a superficial and sensational judgment of the surveys. They provide no direct evidence of discrimination. Of course I want to see full and fair opportunities for all. I suggest that the hon.

and learned Gentleman and others wait until we get the results of surveys covering applications for Civil Service appointments. We shall then be in a better position to judge the realities of the situation.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that recruitment and preferment in the Civil Service will continue to be made on the basis of merit alone, because that will best serve the public?

Mr. Hayhoe: I give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. I agree that that is the right and historic way of making Civil Service appointments and promotions.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept that the monitoring surveys can be beneficial to ethnic minorities, but does the Minister accept that there are dangers in being able to trace records back to individual applicants or employees? Therefore, will he make sure that it is not possible to trace records back to individuals?

Mr. Hayhoe: I understand the sensitivities to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The records of the ethnic surveys will be maintained in such a way that they cannot be used to the disadvantage of any of the individuals concerned.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Do the Government accept that, in the matter of attitudes to ethnic minorities, the standards that are applied to the police should apply to the public services in general?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not wish to pre-empt a debate which I understand is to take place later today.

Civil Service Unions

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions to discuss industrial relations.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service trade unions; and what was discussed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what he discussed during his most recent talks with representatives of the Civil Service unions.

Mr. Hayhoe: I met the Civil Service unions on 15 August to discuss the question of arbitration in relation to their 1984 pay claim, and I was also present on 5 September when the unions raised the same matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that the association set up to replace the trade unions at GCHQ Cheltenham has failed miserably? Why does the Minister not accept that the overwhelming majority of employees at Cheltenham want the right to belong to a trade union and to have it recognised by management?

Mr. Hayhoe: The matters raised by the hon. Gentleman were certainly not discussed when I last met the Civil Service unions, and I do not accept his comments.

Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister not accept the comments?

Mr. Hayhoe: Because they are not true.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Minister met Civil Service trade unionists, did he raise with them the article in September's Assessment—the tax journal —which


dealt with the problems of collection in the Revenue? Has he seen the repeated comments by tax collectors about the inability of their departments to raise taxes efficiently? Will he now conduct a full inquiry into comments by inspectors with a view to ensuring that sufficient staff are available in the Inland Revenue to carry out their public duties in the way that they believe they should be carried out?

Mr. Hayhoe: I can think only that the hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply. I said that when I last met the Civil Service unions, at their request, I discussed arbitration as it applied to the 1984 pay negotiations. The issues which the hon. Gentleman mentions were not raised by the Civil Service unions on that occasion.

Dr. McDonald: When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he tell them that he has decided to abandon plans to privatise the security services in the Civil Service'? Is he aware that after Brighton the public will be alarmed when they realise that civil servant security guards are thoroughly vetted before they start their duties, but that the employees of private security firms will not be so vetted? Is the Minister aware that privatisation has already occurred at the Inland Revenue sorting office at Kew, that the door is left unattended and that anyone can walk into the building at any time? What plans does he have to deal with the matter? Will he abandon these dangerous plans?

Mr. Hayhoe: I can think only that the hon. Lady has misplaced her notes, because question 49 deals with privatisation and security services. I shall deal with those matters when we reach that question.

Financial Management (Report)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received on Cmnd. 9297, "Progress in Financial Management in Government Departments."

Mr. Hayhoe: None; but it has attracted favourable and welcome expressions of support.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that Departments vary in the policies that they adopt in relation to the publication of financial management initiative documents? Can he confirm that the Government's policy is for the maximum publicity and information to be given on FMIs and other Government policies?

Mr. Hayhoe: I can confirm that the Government believe that all such documents should be published, except when questions such as security or commercial confidentiality are involved. I accept that as much publication of the FMI documents as Departments can manage should take place, but I stress that decisions on such matters are not for central Government, but for Departments.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that even this Government's approach to financial management should not mean that public services are reduced or that any member of the public should be subjected to discourtesy? Does he regard staff training as an important part of management?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I certainly do. I endorse what the hon Gentleman says about members of the public not being subjected to discourtesy by civil servants. In the years that I have been responsible for parts of the Civil Service, I have found that the overwhelming majority of civil servants provide the public with an exemplary service which meets the needs of the population generally.

Departmental Security (Privatisation)

Mr.Soley: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will review the policy of privatising security arrangements at Government Departments.

Mr. Hayhoe: No. It remains the Government's policy to contract out services such as security guarding at Government Departments, subject, of course, to adequate safeguards, when this is cost effective and makes good management sense.

Mr. Soley: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) right in saying that that will not be satisfactorily maintained and that all the evidence confirms that? Is it not true that after the Brighton bombing the last thing the Government should be condidering is privatising security services for Government Departments? It is an act of madness, and they should stop it now.

Mr. Hayhoe: There is absolutely no question of allowing security to be jeoardised by any of the arrangements. The commercial guard firms will be awarded contracts to guard Government Departments only if the Departments concerned are satisfied that they can do so to an acceptably high standard.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: How far does my hon. Friend intend to go in this matter? Which Departments will be put out to contract to private companies? What co-operation will there be from the police? Will there be privatisation of security at Downing street, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the Home Office? We need a definition of how far this will go.

Mr. Hayhoe: This is a matter for individual Departments. They must be satisfied that any such privatisation is both cost effective and makes good management sense. They must further be satisfied that the security standards are of, and are maintained at, a high level.

Coles Cranes (Purchase)

Mr. Bryan Gould: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the proposed purchase of Coles Cranes—a subsidiary of Acrow Ltd., in receivership — by the American firm of Grove Allan —a subsidiary of the Walter Kidde Group—to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): This merger falls to be considered by the Office of Fair Trading under the provision of the Fair Trading Act. The Director General of Fair Trading will advise in due course on whether it appears to qualify for investigation and whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My right hon. Friend will then make his decision in the light of the director general's advice.

Mr. Gould: Is the Minister aware of the grave disquiet in Sunderland and elsewhere both at the initial failure of Acrow—which, I suppose, is simply one of the fruits of the so-called recovery that we have enjoyed during the past three years—and at the handling of the receivership subsequently, especially as it affects Coles Granes? Does he not understand that that is increasingly seen as a text book example of what is wrong with British insolvency law and practice?
I am sure that the Minister must understand that there will be considerable anger and concern about any failure to make an immediate reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Is there not the clearest possible case for such a reference, given that the two companies—Coles and Kidde, or its subsidiary Grove — have something approaching 80 per cent. of the British market? What more is required to justify a reference?
Can the Minister say whether he recognises, as his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence are on record as recognising, the defence implications of allowing this important British manufacturing capacity to pass into foreign hands? Can he confirm that his Department was closely involved with the consortium of unions, management and local authorities that was hoping to buy the firm? Was not his Department prepared to contribute a substantial sum towards that?
In those circumstances, did the Minister or his Department hear from the receiver—and, if so, when—about the American bid and the fact that he proposed to accept it? Will he comment on the receiver's failure to keep the consortium advised, as he had promised to do, so that it had no opportunity of making a counter bid?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the affairs of a company in receivership must be resolved between the receiver, the company and the creditors, and that is what happened. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that representations were made to my colleagues and myself and that the Government proposed to back the original bid by management, in the usual way that aid is given by the Department.
As we understand the position, the bid from Kidde was on, then it was off and the way appeared to be clear for the management buy-out. Then the Kidde bid was on again at short notice at the end of last week, and was accepted

by the receiver—something that he was entitled to do. It is entirely his decision as to which offer he will accept in such circumstances. Referring to the question of a possible reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I have asked my Department to ask the director general to give us his advice urgently so that the decision can be made as to whether reference will be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Bob Clay: Is the Minister aware that well over 1,000 workers have been treated in the most shameful way by the receiver? It may be that his behaviour has been legal—lawyers will determine that —but does the Minister agree that it is disgraceful for the receiver to have agreed a contract with the management-work force consortium last Tuesday, to sell the company to an American bidder on the Thursday morning, and not even to have told the management consortium until Friday night what he had done? As far as we know, he did not even tell the Department until well after he had done it.
The Minister mentioned major creditors. Barclays Bank, a major creditor, was not informed by the receiver—on his own admission. Is not this a most extraordinary way for the receiver to behave? Given the consternation that this is causing in Sunderland, the complete lack of knowledge of the Americans' intentions, and the need for the company to carry on trading, because it is viable despite the overall failure of Acrow, should not the Minister be making a decision? The new company would have 83 per cent. of the market. The Kidde corporation has been trying to sell its own subsidiary for two years. Therefore, does he not think that it is strange that it is now trying to buy another subsidiary? In those circumstances, does he not think that he should refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission immediately?

Mr. Fletcher: As I said, in the first instance, it is a matter for the director general to advise my right hon. Friend as to whether a reference should be made. I hope that anyone, including hon. Members, who has any evidence on this matter which he wishes to present to the director general will do so. Hon. Members may have been made aware of a statement made jointly by Grove and by the receiver, or on their behalf, which says that it is currently envisaged that the majority of Coles' former employees based in Sunderland who were made redundant by the receiver on 23 October will be offered new employment in the future.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does the Minister agree that it would be surprising if the prospective buyer did not make such a statement? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he seems to have displayed a complacent attitude today? A statement is required from him either today or tomorrow on whether this matter will be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In those circumstances, Grove may well decide that it does not want to be put under such an examination.
Does the Minister agree that, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said, the receiver's action has been legal, it has also been tremendously unethical? The Minister of State telexed Sunderland to the effect that he would keep in close touch with the receiver on the position. Was he advised that the receiver was selling over his head? Did he have any advance notice of that? In the telex he also said that he was aware of the regional employment position in Sunderland, but is he


aware that there is a strong feeling that, whatever Grove and the Kidde corporation may have said initially, the result will be to the long-term disadvantage of the Sunderland work force? Will he take action today? Will he advise himself——

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member be brief?

Mr. Bagier: Very well, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister at least ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and myself today or tomorrow at the latest?

Mr. Fletcher: I never refuse to meet hon. Members on such matters. I appreciate the strength of feeling in the north-east about the whole matter. Before any decision can be made about referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, my right hon. Friend is obliged under the terms of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to receive the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. I have asked the director general to give us the advice urgently.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In the light of the Government's much trumpeted policies in favour of management buy-outs and workers' ownership, and bearing in mind that 1,000 of the work force are in favour of the management buy-out option and that that option would result in 24 per cent. of the firm being in the hands of the work force, will the Minister say unequivocally that both he and his Government would prefer to see the management buy-out option taken rather than have the firm bought out by the Kidde corporation?

Mr. Fletcher: I am not in a position to say that. I did not consider the bids that were made or their detailed terms or the amount of working capital available to go into the business to keep it going as a viable concern. Those were all matters that the receiver had to judge. The decision was his. There is no point in me or anyone else in the House second-guessing decisions the details of which we know nothing or very little about.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there is great bitterness in

Stockport that the banks were able to call the receiver into the group despite its good investment record and good labour relations? Does he also accept that the work force in Stockport at Coles Cranes would like to be treated in the same way as the work force at Thames Storey who were able to participate in a management buy-out? Can the Minister say anything about the possibility of retaining any jobs in Stockport as a result of this possible takeover and the possibility of a close-down by the American company?

Mr. Fletcher: As I have said already, there is a commitment by the new owners that the majority of those made redundant on 23 October will be employed under the new arrangements. That is as much as I can say about the deal at this stage.

Mr. Harry Cowans: The Minister took the precaution of reading out the joint statement by the receiver and the American firm. Will he assure not only the House but the work force that the jobs offered will be in Sunderland and not in Minnesota?

Mr. Fletcher: Judging from the words in the statement, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Minister aware that a number of his colleagues have been to the north-east and when we have complained to them about the high level of unemployment there they have replied again and again, "Why not help yourselves?" Here is a group of managers and workers in the area who are prepared to help themselves and save a number of jobs. If they owned the company, we could say that there was a long-term commitment. We do not know, of course; we have only evidence of other multinationals about their commitment to the north-east. But will the Minister comment on why he has not intervened to help the managers and workers in this case to help themselves?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I will. The position is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests. My Department offered financial assistance for the management buy-out. The point is that the decision about which bid to accept was a matter for the receiver. At the end of the day he accepted a higher bid from Grove.

Attorney-General

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the behaviour of the Attorney-General in making statements about a matter before the courts.
I refer to the complaint made public on Friday by the lawyers of an accused person. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his courtesy in being present today, as I am to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris).
The statement by the Attorney-General was made on BBC Radio 4 in a programme entitled "The Law in Action", but not in the House.
That brings me to my first complaint. If any hon. Member speaking in the House starts to comment on a case which is before the courts, you, Mr. Speaker, rightly come down on him with a ton of sub judice bricks. That is understood by us all. My first question is whether the same does not apply to actions outside the House, especially when they are the actions of a Minister of the Crown commenting on a case in which inevitably he will be involved.
The matter is definite in that the Attorney-General described a man facing trial as actually having committed an offence. There is no other construction that can be put on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words. Whatever the context, such a description does not show proper regard for the rights of accused persons. That is the definite aspect of the matter.
The urgent aspect is that the Attorney-General, the Minister charged by the House with the duty of restraining contempt of court, has himself committed such a contempt. If a newspaper prints a contempt of court, who other than the Attorney-General is to step in? Who takes proceedings against the Attorney-General when he commits a contempt is a matter of urgency. I am advised that the only parliamentary question that I could ask on this subject would be—I do not know whether it is in order —to ask the Attorney-General whether he would take proceedings against himself. I am not being funny about it; that is the delicate situation that we are in.
I plead with you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is important. As the Government's conduct in the Ponting

case is clearly an issue, the Attorney-General's unrepentant attitude can only cause further concern about his handling of the prosecution. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter that the House, albeit in a short debate, should have an opportunity to discuss before Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the behaviour of the Attorney-General in making statements about a matter before the courts.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would care to give guidance to the House on this aspect of the sub judice rule. It is not a hypothetical matter. It may arise when the Attorney-General next answers questions in the House. I am the last to wish to transgress the sub judice rule, but if I were to opine and to ask him a question at Question Time to the effect that a current case was a case of someone disclosing what he had no right to disclose, or that the basis of the prosecution was that and a breach of trust would it be in order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I can rule only on sub judice matters that occur inside the Chamber. It is not for me to rule on matters that occur outside the Chamber.

Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you cannot rule, and I am not asking you to rule, on any matter that has or may have occurred outside the Chamber. In a matter of weeks there will be questions to the Attorney-General. I would not wish to fall foul of the sub judice rule by putting precisely this question and asking the Attorney-General to confirm what I understand he has already said. To avoid that, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you cannot rule now, to reflect overnight and give guidance to the House so that we may avoid the situation that may arise within the House and not outside.

Mr. Speaker: I have got the point. I shall certainly look into the matter.

Orders of the Day — Police and Criminal Evidence Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

New Clause

IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE

Lords amendment: No. 209, after clause 71, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) If it appears to the court in any proceedings that any evidence (other than a confession) proposed to be given by the prosecution may have been obtained improperly, the court shall not allow the evidence to be given unless—

(a) the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that it was obtained lawfully and in accordance with a code of practice (where applicable) issued, approved, and in force, under Part VI of this Act; or
(b) the court is satisfied that anything improperly done in obtaining it was of no material significance in all the circumstances of the case and ought, therefore, to be disregarded; or
(c) the court is satisfied that the probative value of the evidence, the gravity of the offence charged, and the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained are such that the public interest in the fair administration of the criminal law requires the evidence to be given, notwithstanding that it was obtained improperly.

(2) For the purposes of this section, evidence shall be treated as having been obtained improperly if it was obtained—

a in breach of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment or rule of law; or
(b) in excess of any power conferred by or obtained under this Act or any other enactment; or
(c) in breach of any provision of a code of practice issued, approved, and in force under Part VI of this Act; or
(d) as a result of any material deception in obtaining or exercising any power under this Act or any other enactment."

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the Government amendment in lieu thereof and the proposed amendment thereto.

Mr. Brittan: With the permission of the House, if it is necessary I shall deal later with the issues raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) in relation to his proposed amendment to the new clause.
For many years now, the question of the admissibility of evidence that has been improperly obtained has been a vexed question among those involved in the administration of criminal justice. Some have argued that it should automatically not be admissible at all. I find it difficult to accept that. It may be that there has been a minor breach yielding a very cogent piece of evidence. It is difficult to believe that in those circumstances a guilty man should go free as a means of encouraging the observance of a code by the police. Many would think that the right course in such a case is proper disciplinary action against anyone who has been in breach of a code.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances in which it would be quite wrong that evidence should be admitted if improperly obtained. The extent to which under the common law the courts have had a discretion to exclude

such evidence has been much canvassed. Then came the decision in the case of Sang. Now that we are legislating afresh, however, I think that there is no need to argue about what the law was as opposed to what it ought to be. There is common ground that in some circumstances courts should exclude evidence. The difficult question is what those circumstances should be.
Hon. Members will know that amendment No. 209 as it stands was agreed to in another place on Report. The clause seeks to exclude improperly obtained evidence, other than confessions, unless the prosecution prove to the court either that the evidence was obtained lawfully or that if it was obtained improperly the matter was trivial or the public interest requires the evidence to be given. After very careful personal consideration and detailed consultation with colleagues, I have formed the view that the clause as it stands is not one which the Government should accept, but I hope that the House will feel that the Government clause tabled in lieu is less difficult to operate while demonstrating a positive response to the same concerns that were reflected in the new clause.
As I have made clear, in our view it can indeed be a proper part of the judge's function to have regard to the way in which evidence has been obtained and to refuse to admit it if those circumstances bear upon the fairness of the proceedings. That is a principle which we are prepared to see enshrined for the first time in statute. It corresponds very closely with what Lord Scarman described when he said on Report that
it is left to the discretion of the judge to determine whether the fair administration of the criminal law requires the evidence to be given." [Official Report, House of Lords, 31 July 1984; Vol. 455, c. 654.]
It also acknowledges a possible link between the way in which evidence was obtained and the fairness of its use in court.
If there is that common ground, what is it about the clause that presents us with such difficulties? There are consideral practicable difficulties, to which I shall come, but there is also the more basic question of what is the right approach to the whole problem.
We should be clear about the results of the new clause. It could lead—for all its qualifications, it must lead, in an appropriate case, for otherwise it would be useless—to the acquittal of a guilty man, not because a confession has been wrung from him by oppression, nor as a result merely of giving him a fair trial, but simply because evidence has been obtained in breach of the law or of the codes of practice. I appreciate the intention, which is to mark society's disapproval of the conduct, as it may be, of the police. But the penalty is not levied on the police. It is levied on the public, in the shape of the acquittal of a guilty man.

Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brittan: Perhaps I could develop the argument, as I may well cover the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to raise. If he wishes to intervene later, I shall be happy to give way.
The approach that I have described seems to me to be wrong in principle. The purpose of excluding evidence should not be disciplinary. It should be to avoid evidence being adduced which if adduced would lead to an unfair trial. That is why our alternative new clause focuses directly on the trial itself. It accepts that the circumstances


in which evidence was obtained may be highly material, but it makes the ultimate test of admissibility the effect of the admission of such evidence on the fairness of the trial itself.
So much for the principle, but we are equally concerned about the effect which the new clause passed in another place would have on the work of the courts.

Mr. John Morris: Surely, the question whether the guilty man got off would be dependent on the decision of the trial judge to exercise his discretion in accordance with the limits set out in the new clause?

Mr. Brittan: That is certainly so. None the less, I do not resile from the proposition that, although there are qualifications, the basis of the principle of the new clause remains as I have said. It remains possible, while meeting substantially the same concerns as have been expressed and have been a matter of debate in legal and police circles for a long time, to approach the problem in another—;and in my view a preferable — way. I refer to the general principle in the new clause moved by Lord Scarman. I accept that it has important qualifications, but it none the less remains the principle.
We are equally concerned about the effect which the Lords' new clause would have on the work of the courts. One of my principal concerns is bound to be to ensure that neither the accused nor the whole criminal justice system bear the burden of unnecessarily lengthy trials. That is at the heart of our objection to the placing of a heavy onus of proof on the prosecution as soon as the way in which evidence was obtained is even raised as an issue. Under the new clause, as soon as the issue is raised—as soon as it appears to the court in any proceedings that any evidence proposed to be given may have been obtained improperly—the onus falls on the prosecution to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was obtained lawfully. Otherwise, one of the other qualifications may apply.
Under this clause the prosecution must show that there is no cause for concern; or, if there is, the court must be satisfied that the evidence should none the less be admitted. Let us be clear about what will actually happen in court. Every competent defence counsel will raise whatever issue he can about the way in which every shred of evidence was obtained; interminable and complex argument about the propriety of those circumstances will ensue. When that issue is decided, the court will then have to test admissibility against a number of criteria; and it will, I suggest, have an uphill task before it when it comes to do so.
How will the courts judge whether what was done by the police was of
material significance in all the circumstances
for the test in subsection (1)(b)? In what sense do the
probative value of the evidence
and
the gravity of the offence charged
bear upon the public interest in the fair administration of justice? Do high probative value and a grave offence suggest inclusion, or exclusion? We are not told. I would guess that the way in which the court is supposed to address the matter is perhaps this: that if the probative value is high and the offence grave, the evidence should be submitted even if the impropriety is great. Can it be

right for investigators to have it implied in statute that they may do as they please providing the charge is sufficiently grave at the end of the day? Would such an approach really stand up to criticism? The court must also consider whether the obtaining of the evidence was improper in the sense of one of the definitions in subsection (2), including, it seems, investigating whether a magistrate was right, for example, to issue a search warrant.
I am not suggesting to this House that a court cannot decide all these issues, although they are perhaps a tall order for magistrates. But I do suggest that the court should not have to address itself to these complex criteria in the course of ordinary criminal proceedings. I hope that I have explained to the House why we do not think this provision will work well. But I have said that we accept its prime aim to enable courts to take into account the circumstances in which evidence was obtained. Perhaps I may, therefore, turn now to our alternative proposal and explain its merits as we see them.
Before going into detailed areas, I feel I should explain to the House exactly what our amendment provides. In replacing Lords amendment No. 209, the amendment gives a court discretion in criminal proceedings to refuse to allow any prosecution evidence to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
We think that this resolves the difficulties and objections that I have identified in the clause as it stands. The provision simply allows the court to exclude evidence if the fairness of the proceedings would be adversely affected, and explicitly requires the way in which the evidence was obtained to be considered in arriving at any such decision.
4 pm
I hope that hon. Members will agree that we have here a clause simple and clear in form, yet suitably flexible. Because it is simple it does not purport to provide a set of examination questions which the court must apply, or try to cover every circumstance explicitly. If we are discussing conferring on the court the residual discretion, which Parliament might feel appropriate, to exclude evidence if it has an undesirable effect, we must recognise that the multiplicity of circumstances in which that may arise makes it impossible, or at any rate undesirable, to confine the matter to a set of specific criteria. The simple and flexible test that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has advanced, an adaptation of which appears on the Amendment Paper, is the appropriate way forward.
Our amendment also differs from the clause in an important respect in accordance with the anxieties of some who have raised these issues. There is no restriction in our clause on applying the test of admissibility to confession evidence. Although we have two later clauses in the Bill which go carefully into that, I see no reason to omit a specific and significant form of evidence from this clause. Our amendment will, I suggest, provide a framework for condidering the fairness of admitting all forms of evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely.
I should like to emphasise that our amendment is by no means a mere negation of the present clause. I accept, as I have said, the spirit in which the clause was made and


much of the underlying thought behind it. I should also draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that what we propose today differs somewhat from the clause on similar lines which the Government tabled, but which was not considered on Report in another place. The changes widen the scope of application of the clause. First, our amendment is no longer confined to evidence "obtained from the accused" on which the prosecution proposes to rely. On reflection we felt that the restriction was artificial, and we accept that evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely means evidence from any source and not only evidence—including confession, as I have said—from the accused. Secondly, we have been ready to remove the word "prejudicial" from our original proposal in the context of being prejudicial to the fairness of proceedings. I am grateful to Lord Scarman for raising this point. "Prejudicial" is too weighty and narrow in scope and has accordingly been replaced by a reference to adverse effect.
What, therefore, is the general effect of the amendment which I am commending to the House? Quite simply, the effect is one of fairness: fairness to the accused, because decisions on admissibility of evidence against him should not depend, for example, on the charge he faces; fairness to the public, as evidence will not be excluded purely for some reason lying outside the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused; and fairness to the court, the liability of which to time-consuming disputes about the admissibility of evidence will be greatly reduced by this amendment so that its proper function—to allow a fair trial for the accused—can be adhered to with efficiency and effectivness.
I am, in short, confident that this amendment, which I commend to hon. Members, is preferable to the present clause. Much of the underlying thinking is there but our proposal will also simplify procedures on exclusion of evidence, will reject evidence the use of which is unfair for whatever reason, and will include all relevant and good evidence in the best interests of justice and of society.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I should like to speak to the Lords new clause. Its merit is that it is as clear as it is cogent. It is clear in that, proposing the discretionary exclusionary rule — as opposed to a mandatory exclusionary rule such as is extant in the United States—it covers all proceedings in criminal courts of law, including magistrates' courts. It provides for a challenge of the propriety of the evidence the prosecution proposes to give and places the onus of proving the propriety of such evidence upon the prosecution who must satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt. It is cogent in its definition of propriety which, significantly, includes material deception. It should be contrasted with the amendment proposed by the right honourable and learned Gentleman in which the only criterion brought forward is that of fairness — he emphasised that word — not administration of justice, the gravity of the offence, the extent of the impropriety, whether it has a material effect or whether it runs to the probative value of the evidence. The wording of the Government amendment is too loose.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the removal of the word "prejudicial" as a result of comments in another place, but what do the words "proposed to rely" mean? Of course the prosecution proposes to rely on the evidence which is given, but certain evidence might not amount to very much. Alternatively, it might amount to

a great deal. If the Government amendment were accepted the court would not be able to decide for itself what weight to place on this section.
Already, in my mind's eye, I can see the learned judge scratching his wig. Because it is vague and parsimonious —the Home Secretary called it simple—it requires the addition of a catch-all to say that nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence. It is a kitchen-sink clause, or what Americans call boiler plate. It covers everything, but it is the final refuge of the parliamentary draftsmen.
It is hardly surprising that, in those circumstances, the honourable and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) originally saw fit to move an amendment which would bring that of the Government more into line with that proposed by the other place. We are entitled to wonder why that of the other place was not accepted at once. It was seeking only to maintain the balance between the rights of the citizen and the need to apprehend the criminal or, as it has been put admirably,
to safeguard citizens against the misuse of police power in the collection of evidence for purposes of criminal proceedings".
The Government's amendment tries to cover evidence that is obtained improperly. It goes to fairness and the improper use of evidence. I welcome the alteration which means that evidence can now come from any source rather than sources that are limited to the accused. The Government's amendment seems rather wide for the Bill's purpose, however. It is supposed to show flexibility, it is supposed to be realistic, it is supposed to hit the right target, and it is intended to avoid artificiality. All that: is as it may be, but it advances neither the cause of the suspect nor the administration of justice.
We have no wish to shoot the pianist—we have no wish to sack the parliamentary draftsmen—but the net has been cast so wide that it helps neither those who administer the law nor the objects of its administration.
A second significant reason for introducing the Government's amendment was given in another place—to ensure for the citizen a fair trial when facing a criminal charge. The House may think that those are honourable aims which are honourably articulated. It may feel that they fall within the remit that has guided two Home Secretaries in the past two years in regard to the Bill to maintain the delicate and fragile equilibrium between the citizens' rights and the obligations of the police.
Had we been debating an exclusion rule that was absolute—known in the United States as an automatic exclusionary rule — there might have been some justification for the Government's apprehension and for the amendment; but we are not. The exclusion rule embodied in the Lords' new clause is flexible, evenhanded, and provides a restraint for the garnering of evidence which may turn out: to be unlawful or improperly obtained. It is discretionary and falls within the purview of the sound administration of justice. As a barrister I appreciate that the new clause has been constructed logically. It has been constructed in a masterly way which appeals to lawyers and which would. appeal to judges, especially when one considers the shortness of the Government's amendment.
There are to be rules about the propriety on which evidence is obtained. A criticism of the amendment in the other place was that that would give rise to more trials within trials. The Lord Chancellor described that as a necessary evil. If evidence is obtained improperly and if


there is to be a trial within a trial, so what? The Secretary of State referred to the danger to society caused by the acquittal of a guilty man. That is a remarkable expression of what he feels would be the consequence of a trial within a trial and of the disallowance of evidence which might lead to a conviction. I believe that trials within trials help to protect the suspect. Only when a suspect is properly protected can we have absolute certainty beyond reasonable doubt of his culpability. That is a better definition of trials within trials and the exclusion of evidence than that given by the Secretary of State.
That does not mean that evidence will be excluded. That would be done at the judge's discretion. He can take into account its probative value. It is contended that additional trials within trials are not in the interests of justice and that they overburden the administration of justice. That would not occur to a man charged where the prosecution relied on evidence improperly obtained. He would rightly suffer a sense of grievance which would be dissipated if he could see his barrister battling on his behalf in a trial within a trial on the propriety of the means by which such evidence had been obtained. The Secretary of State assumed that an aggressive and successful barrister or defending counsel would use all means at his disposal to examine the evidence to see what could be excluded to obtain an acquittal. That may not be the case, but certainly the ultimate discretion rests with the judge.
We are witnessing the dangers of what is known as the agent provocateur. Day by day we see his deceit and deception. Are they to be the evidentiary norms of the future? I do not wish to make a generalised criticism of the police, but is it right that plain clothes officers should circulate in gay clubs in London dressed in tight blue jeans, open-necked shirts, black shirts, black jackets, training shoes and a chain around their necks? There is no justification for any plain clothes police officer to do so, not even for the purpose of checking allegations of breaches of the licensing laws.
Some would say that we are wading out from the waters of the common law and that through this new clause we are creating new concepts. That is not an entirely accurate description of the common law, as the Secretary of State acknowledged. Under common law there has always been discretion vested in a judge to refuse to allow evidence to be given if in his view oppressive means were used to obtain it, or if there had been an abuse of procedure. A judge would take into account the prejudicial effect of such evidence and decide whether it outweighed its probative value. That discretion existed for a long time prior to 1979.
The Secretary of State referred to the Sang case and said that we should not examine the background to it because we were making new law. I agree with that. However, if a judge in any criminal court thought that evidence had been improperly obtained, he had the discretion to disallow it, even if it was relevant and had probative value. That discretion was eliminated in the other place in 1979. Its elimination was not well received by the profession. It effectively destroyed the balance between prejudicial effect and probative value. It knocked out the first factor because it became easy for a judge to conclude that if evidence had probative value he might disregard its prejudicial effect.
4.15 pm
In the context of the Bill, linked as it is to an extension of police powers—we have often heard it argued that the powers are not being extended, but merely codified —it is important to ensure a citizen's right to a fair trial. Unless we do so, we risk alienating public opinion at a time when the House should be seeking to secure public confidence in the police.
No evidence should be admissible where it has been obtained illegally, unfairly, by trick or by other misrepresentation other than in accordance with the new clause under which the judge has discretion to allow it. We should depart from the idea that it is admissible only where the actions of the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and were oppressive.
I commend the Lords' new clause to the House for its cogency and clarity, because it seeks to protect the ordinary citizen, and encompasses legal concepts which are understandable to barristers and judges. Hon. Members are elected to ensure that good laws are passed —good for the ordinary citizen in that they protect his rights and limit the rights of those in power with authority. The new clause is good law and as such it is worthy of the House's support.

Sir Edward Gardner: On 31 July on Report in another place a majority was in favour of introducing this Lords amendment. Before I put forward some views which may be of interest to the House and which I hope will result in our thinking about the virtues of the amendment moved by Lord Scarman as against some of the defects of the Government's new clause, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on his place at the Dispatch Box and to wish him well.
The amendment allows powers to courts to exclude evidence that has been obtained improperly. The amendment makes good law and good sense. I must make a distinction between it and another amendment with which the House will deal later, which deals with making racial discrimination a disciplinary offence, which, in the view of most Conservative Members, makes neither good sense nor good law.
It has been said many times, but it cannot be repeated too frequently, that this is a momentous Bill. It is a Bill of profound importance to the future administration of our criminal law and it must go from the House in the best possible state. The Scarman amendment, if I may so call it, seeks to give the court powers to exclude evidence that has been obtained unlawfully or by an abuse of the powers given to the police by the Bill. The Government's new clause, which is put forward as a substitute for the Scarman amendment, dilutes, in language that is too wide and too imprecise, the virtues of the Scarman amendment, and it leaves out altogether the guidelines that are attached to the Scarman amendment. Those guidelines are important because in magistrates' courts, for example, lay magistrates are advised by clerks of the court, and if such a court must apply the law — I hope that his view is shared by most hon. Members—Parliament has a duty to give the court as much guidance as possible on the way in which it believes the law should be applied.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in his present position and when he had a distinguished career at the Bar, has shown himself throughout as having no rival as one who advocates that our laws should be
sensible, easily understood and just and result in fairness to those who come before the courts. It may sound to the House as though this is an argument put forward by a lawyer on a complex and esoteric legal point. In fact, the contrast between the Scarman amendment and the Government's clause is profoundly important. If one accepts Scarman, one accepts a means of giving the courts the powers that they need to make sure that the balance between the duties and the powers given to the police by the Bill are properly exercised. That is why I feel so strongly about the need not only to set out the law with the greatest clarity that we can achieve but to give the guidelines which the Scarman amendment undoubtedly does.
I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 131 of chapter 4 of the Philips report on criminal evidence and procedure, which states:
Parliament should take the responsibility for deciding what the rules should be.
Later, it states:
The police need a greater measure of certainty than the existing rules and the manner used to enforce them provide. They should know that if they comply with the rules their evidence will be admitted…If the police do not comply with the rules or if they use the exceptions unreasonably, the consequences should be known to them for certain.
The Philips report came to no firm conclusion because, as it said, this is an extremely difficult, complex and important point that must be left to Parliament to resolve.
The resolution of the problem is found in the language and the drafting of the Scarman amendment. It allows the courts to exclude evidence unless the court is satisfied that the impropriety by which the evidence was obtained is of no material significance or—I must read clause 2(c) of the amendment in full to give the House the picture—if
the court is satisfied that the probative value of the evidence, the gravity of the offence charged, and the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained are such that the public interest in the fair administration of the criminal law requires the evidence to be given, notwithstanding that it was obtained improperly.
Then come the vital guidelines. If we remove them, we leave the court blind and give it no assistance as to how this set of rules should be applied.
The guidelines are simple, easy to understand, comprehensive and practical. I shall not read them all, because they can be seen by hon. Members. However, I can tell the House as a fact that the Scarman amendment was not only passed with a majority in another place after the most careful—one might almost say intensive—consultation and deliberations, but the other place decided that this was the way in which the law should be applied when there was impropriety in the obtaining of evidence. That view of the law has been supported by distinguished lawyers of great experience in the other place and by the Law Lords who have considered it. It is also supported by the executive committee of Justice, of which I am a member, although that is not the reason why I have spoken on behalf of the amendment. If it has not divided lawyers, the amendment has certainly caused much debate among them.
I concede that there are respectable arguments on both sides of the fence. One could argue that the Bill would be better if no new clause or amendment were added to deal with the exclusion of improper evidence. One could argue that the Government's new clause is impeccable, but in my view and in the view of many others—I hope that my brief review of the advantages of the Scarman amendment

has satisfied others of this—the Scarman amendment is superior to the Government's new clause. It is precise, it gives guidelines, and the test is whether the evidence was obtained properly and with propriety. That is an essential test, because it provides the means of deciding whether the police have abused their powers. One could say that if the police abuse their powers, the Bill provides a disciplinary procedure that will enable the police to be separately disciplined for what they have done; but that would be little comfort to the defendant who was convicted on evidence that was improperly obtained.
An amendment stands in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). I was nervous about saying to my right hon. and learned Friend—I did not want to do it—that I did not like his new clause and would not support it. With the assistance and advice of my hon. Friend, I tried to table an amendment which would graft on to the Government's new clause the guidelines which many of us feel are so necessary. That has been done, but in my view and in the view of others who are perhaps more qualified in parliamentary drafting, there is an inherent defect in my amendment because the graft is not perfect. That could have been dealt with had there been time, but there is none. We are working more or less second by second, which is why I shall resume my seat almost immediately. As a result, one has no choice but to choose the best available. At present, the Scarman amendment would best deal with the problem that we are seeking to solve, and I respectfully suggest that it deserves—and from me it will get—unqualified support.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary will recall that at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress through Parliament I moved a new clause designed to achieve the effects of the new clause moved by Lord Scarman and carried by another place. It is fair to say that Lord Scarman's new clause made two important changes to the draft which I had tabled, both of which were significant improvements.
The first was to remove from my new clause the clear defect that the court would rule only on the representation that evidence had been illegally obtained. Lord Scarman's new clause provided that it would be excluded if that appeared to the court itself without representations having been made. The second improvement was that Lord Scarman widened the ambit of his new clause to exclude evidence improperly obtained, and he defined that.
Subject to those two significant amendments, Lord Scarman's new clause is quite similar to the one that I moved earlier. Therefore, I do not propose to re-rehearse the arguments in favour of my new clause. In a sense the Home Secretary sought to answer some of the points that I deployed in that debate. He sought to describe the principle underlying the new clause which has come to be known as the Scarman amendment. He said that it appeared that the object of the new clause was to mark society's disapproval of illegally obtained evidence and the use of it in the court to obtain a conviction. Although I and others have spoken of the value of such a discretionary exclusionary rule in a Bill embodying the codification of police powers, that is not the most important reason for accepting the Scarman amendment.
It is more important that it seeks to embody what Lord Scarman described as the "protective principle" to which


the Philips commission gave considerable attention. That is the most important issue to which we should address ourselves. The Philips commission said:
Where certain standards are set for the conduct of criminal investigations citizens can expect, indeed they have a right, to be treated in accordance with those standards. If they are not so treated then they should not be put at risk. Nor should the investigator gain an advantage. The courts have the responsibility for protecting the citizen's rights.
It added:
The most appropriate way to do so in these circumstances is to remove from the investigator his source of advantage and from the accused the cause of his risk—that is, to exclude the evidence.
The underlying principle is not to mark society's disapproval of the practice but to protect an individual before the courts of the realm whose conviction may turn on the deployment of evidence which has been improperly obtained.
Although I acknowledge that the Home Secretary and the Government have recognised the force of the arguments in favour of a discretionary exclusionary rule, the practical objections that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised to Lord Scarman's amendment are as nothing compared with the practical objections that can be raised against the Government's new clause. I welcome the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) to the Opposition Front Bench on his debut. I adopt without elaboration the arguments that he used in support of Lord Scarman's amendment, but he did not address himself to the defects of the Government new clause.
The Government new clause gives the court discretion
to refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
That is a rule of such obscurity that it will be extremely difficult to apply it in practice. I do not see how that permissive power will in practice be used by the court. If it becomes apparent during the prosecution's submissions that on the face of it some evidence was improperly obtained, or if there is an admission of the fact that it was improperly obtained, the Home Secretary might think that the court would move to exclude it. But unlike Lord Scarman's amendment, the Government new clause does not make clear precisely what sort of argumentation might be acceptable before the court about whether the evidence had been properly obtained. The Home Secretary was, I think, frightened of a trial within a trial—[Interruption.] He shakes his head negatively.

Mr. Brittan: There is no question but that issues will arise that will have to be addressed. The question is as to the complexity and duration of trials within a trial, not whether the issue will have to be considered if it does properly arise.

Mr. Maclennan: I am obliged to the Home Secretary, because I think that, by that intervention, he has conceded a substantial part of our case, which is that if there is to be an argument about the admissibility of certain evidence, it is highly desirable that the court, and counsel appearing before the court, should know what is the nature of the arguments that will be germane before the court, and what are the criteria that the court should have in mind in

determining whether to exclude evidence. To leave the court without such guidance is to make it highly likely that there will be a wide diversity of practice, and it may be many years before the common law develops in such a way as to make it certain what is to be done in such circumstances.
It is common ground that it is our desire in the Bill to seek to codify practices and, as far as possible, to remove doubt about what is proper and improper and what are the consequences of improper proceedings. I am afraid that the Home Secretary's substitution in lieu of Lord Scarman's amendment makes it extremely unlikely that we shall help to codify the practice in the way that the House is anxious to do.
It may not be one of the strongest arguments in favour of Lord Scarman's amendment that it underpins the codification of the police powers and the code of practice that will become part of the Bill. The argument that such an exclusionary rule is a valuable sanction against the abuse of these powers is not one to which, on balance, we should give the greatest weight. I should not choose to give it great weight if I felt that, by including it in the Bill, we were imposing a more difficult task on the courts. However, I think that we are doing the reverse. Lord Scarman's amendment greatly clarifies and simplifies the task of the court, and therefore should be accepted.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is it not a fact that, under the present law, although evidence may be technically inadmissible, the judge has a discretion to exclude it if the probative value is exceeded by its prejudicial value? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that rule works well?

Mr. Maclennan: It could work better, and the debates that we have had on this important amendment are designed to ensure that it does work better. However, I remind the Home Secretary of something about which their Lordships were reminded in the other place, which is that the common law of Scotland already has the provisions of the Scarman amendment. It has worked in practice extremely well, and that was testified to by a former Lord Advocate, Lord McCluskey, in the other place.
At the end of his speech, the Home Secretary said that he was seeking to obtain a balance of considerations within this clause, whereunder the Bill was fair to the accused, fair to the public and fair to the court. Couched in that language, no one could conceivably object to the Home Secretary's objectives. However, it is not fair to the accused to breach what Lord Scarman called the protective principle. I fear that, because of the vagueness of the Government's amendments, there is a serious risk that fairness to the accused will not be observed and evidence that should be excluded because it has been improperly obtained will not be excluded because at the time when it becomes an issue it has not been subjected to the kind of tests set out in the Scarman amendment.
On the fairness to the public point, the public's interest is not always served by obtaining a conviction. Undoubtedly, any exclusionary rule or any abuse that leads to the obtaining of evidence by improper means may lead to the acquittal of a guilty person. That is so even if the Home Secretary's amendment is carried. There may be guilty people who, in the view of the court, have to be acquitted because of the impropriety that led to the


obtaining of the evidence. On the test of fairness to the public, as expressed by the Home Secretary, his amendment is no more satisfactory than Lord Scarman's.
4.45 pm
As to the fairness to the court, for the reasons that I have given about the absence of criteria in the Government's amendment, I regard the Government's amendment as highly unfair to the courts and as such one that they would find extremely difficult to operate. This is a central issue, and undoubtedly one of some difficulty. The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) spoke about the Philips commission, and the duty of Parliament to make good the lacunae in its report. It is proper to exercise that function to the best of our ability, facing all these arguments squarely.
The Home Secretary and the Government would be wise to listen to the verdict of those distinguished lawyers in the other place and in this House — I naturally exclude myself from that category—who have said that the Scarman amendment is not only sound in principle but workable in practice.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): I rise to support the Government's amendment as against Lord Scarman's amendment.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is the Attorney-General's PPS.

Mr. Lyell: That is true, but I have a mind of my own.
The object, as even those on the Opposition Front Bench will appreciate, of both Lord Scarman's amendment and the Government's amendment is to achieve fairness in the trial of the accused. It is worth bearing in mind that when the other place passed Lord Scarman's amendment there was no clause resembling it before their Lordships. The Lord Chancellor had it in mind to bring forward a similar clause, but it was not before the other place. At that stage, there was no protection such as that provided by either of these amendments.
My objection to Lord Scarman's amendment is simple. It is too elaborate, and would lead to far too many trials within a trial. On the other hand, the criterion of fairness, which no doubt the House and the other place agree is the essential criterion, lies at the very heart of the Government's amendment. It is present in Lord Scarman's amendment, but it is the other factors in his amendment that worry me. The Government's amendment rightly leaves the matter to the discretion of the judge, and the judges are, and will be, fair in this matter.
Why do I say that Lord Scarman's clause is too elaborate and why am I worried that there may be too many trials within trials? Let me take the second point first. Trials within trials are bad for justice if they occur too often. At present, they occur almost exclusively in relation to the admissibility of a confession which is often a central matter and the confession must be excluded if it was obtained in circumstances where its admission is likely to lead to unfairness and a miscarriage of justice. If we have too many trials within a trial, it will confuse the jury—one can say that with confidence—and dilute the court's concentration on key issues in the trial.
Why do I say that Lord Scarman's clause is too elaborate? I think that it is because it seeks to lay down in such detail the very criteria which Labour Members and

my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) are so enthusiastic about. First, it makes it a separate and distinct matter that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was lawfully obtained. It then runs through the four criteria —whether there was a breach of the Act or a rule of law; whether the powers conferred by the Act or other rule of law were exceeded; whether there was a breach of ore of the codes of practice under the Act; or whether there was any material deception. Finally, it turns the court's attention to the probative value, the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, and the public interest.
There thus appear to be nine separate matters which the court will have to go through every time the subject is raised. Anybody with experience of the criminal courts and of sitting as a judge, even in a lowly capacity, in the criminal courts will recognise at once that many of those criteria overlap, whereas the fairness and justice of the situation will be readily visible, providing that it is not over-elaborated, to both counsel and judge, and, indeed, to the accused.
If we pass a clause in such detail, we shall simply encourage people to go through the whole ritual every time, distracting their minds from the key issues and in that way confusing, diluting and weakening the ultimate objective of every hon. Member—a fair and just trial.
There are cases that are so serious that it would be monstrous if evidence obtained in breach of the law or procedure were to be admitted. Many can think of examples. A classic example would be where under the new provisions of the Bill, a police officer, entitled to enter premises of a third party to search for evidence, saw some extraneous evidence relating to a different matter which became crucial in that matter but which might be as trivial as an out-of-date tax disc on a car in a forecourt. If it were to become the practice to bring cases on that basis, the courts would rapidly sit on them. There would be many other more serious but not desperately serious examples where courts would exercise their discretion to exclude evidence. Such decisions can be reached swiftly with the court's mind concentrated on the essential issues if we accept the Government's clause.
The Government's clause leaves the discretion fairly and firmly in the lap of the court. It leaves the question of whether there has been any breach well embraced by the rigmarole
if it appears to the court".
It enjoins the court to take into account all the circumstances which it is right and proper that it should do, and it has in mind the fairness of the trial as its overriding and proper objective. I support that objective and the comparatives implicity of the clause, and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. John Morris: The main distinction, stripped down to the essentials, between the proposal of the Home Secretary and that of Lord Scarman in another place is that the Home Secretary would propose that, in the particular circumstances with which we are dealing, evidence would be admissible unless judges chose to exclude it. Lord Scarman has proposed that evidence should be excluded unless judges chose to admit it. That is the basic Rubicon that we are asked to cross or not to cross as the case may be.
It has been prayed in aid—I have read the speech of Lord McCluskey—that Lord Scarman's proposals seem to be working well, or at least reasonably well, in Scotland. Therefore, it is odd that we in England and Wales shut our eyes to what is happening in a kingdom which is part of our country.
The second matter, which has caused concern during this short debate, is how the discretion is to be exercised. The Home Secretary's amendment widens the discretion and both his amendment and that of the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) go back to the pre-Sang situation.
The Home Secretary made the point that there was a danger in Lord Scarman's proposals that the guilty might be acquitted. He has failed to understand and take into account that, even on his proposals, the guilty might still be acquitted. Therefore, it is a question of judgment and a matter of degree whether more people are likely to be acquitted on Lord Scarman's proposals than on those of the Home Secretary. It is not a question of black and white, and the Home Secretary would have done the House a service if he had put his case in that way.
Another matter raised is the Home Secretary's fear of trials within trials. Until the intervention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), he did not make it clear that there would be trials within trials on both propositions. He came clean when he said that he was afraid of the complexity of trials within trials on Lord Scarman's proposals. That is the whole theme of the Lord Chancellor's observations. He must have had some very unhappy experiences to be so much a critic of such developments.
The hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said that Lord Scarman's proposals would confuse a jury. He might also have told the House that those matters would be ventilated in the abscence of a jury. Therefore, I find it difficult to follow how they, per se, would confuse a jury.

Mr. Lyell: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, although arguments as to whether evidence should be excluded would be in the absence of a jury, they could still be raised before the jury at a later stage in the trial, and they frequently are after an unsuccessful trial within a trial on a confession. That is the point that I had in mind.

Mr. Morris: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that will happen in any event if the matters are pertinent and defence counsel want to raise them. But, on the issue of admissibility, there would be no danger of confusing the jury which, he made it abundantly clear to the House, was one of his fears. Such matters, whether or not they fell within the ambit of one of the nine separate matters to which he drew attention, would be canvassed in the absence of the jury. Therefore, there would be no question of confusion there.
5 pm
The Home Secretary said that his proposals were simple, clear and flexible. However, they do not give the trial judge any guidance, except the barest limits, on what matters he has to take into account in reaching his decision. Lord Scarman's amendment lists detailed matters that the court would have to consider, but, under the Home Secretary's proposals, a trial judge would have to consider only

the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained
and whether
the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
Does the Home Secretary really believe that those words will be more valuable to a trial judge than would the catalogue of matters suggested by Lord Scarman? Does the Home Secretary really believe that his proposal is simple, clear and flexible? Perhaps he should think again.
Those of us who spend some of our time in the criminal courts could produce anecdotal evidence, but the House should remember that Lord Scarman, before his elevation to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, was a distinguished trial judge. He did not bring these matters before another place without also bringing to bear his long and distinguished experience of the law at all stages as a practitioner, a trial judge, a judge in the Court of Appeal and as a judge in our supreme court. Therefore, we should listen to his advice.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The point about the amendments is not whether there will be more trials within trials, because it is impossible for us to guess whether there will be more such trials under Lord Scarman's amendment or under the Government's amendment. The point is whether there will be more exclusion of evidence. It is clear that under Lord Scarman's amendment, which provides that evidence shall be excluded in certain circumstances, there is more likelihood of evidence being excluded than there is under the Government's amendment, which leaves the exclusion of evidence to the discretion of a judge.
Some people believe that we should move helter skelter towards the American system which requires the exclusion of any evidence that is improperly obtained and which, together with a number of strange rules of evidence—Americans themselves think them strange—often results in villains who are known to have been engaged in crime for a long time not being able to be charged and brought to trial. I do not believe that we should move so quickly in that direction, and the Government's amendment would be a far slower move towards the American system. American judges admit that their system is highly unsatisfactory.

Sir Edward Gardner: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will explain to the House that there is a great distinction between automatic exclusion of evidence, which is the American way, and exclusion on a discretionary basis, which is provided for both in the Government's amendment and in the Lords amendment.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, because he leads me neatly to my next point.
In Lord Scarman's amendment, the decision to be taken by the judge is broken down under a number of headings which I, as a practitioner in the courts, do not like. I do not think that the test whether evidence is probative is a good test of the justice of a matter, because a confession of guilt may be probative, but it may be unjust to admit it. Therefore, a test of probativeness is going too high.
The next test is the gravity of the offence charged. I am not too attracted to the proposition that evidence could be excluded in a careless driving case but would not be excluded in a murder case. That test goes over the top.
The Lords amendment also includes a test that the public interest in the fair administration of the criminal law


requires evidence to be given. I have heard it said in the Court of Appeal that it is in the interests of justice, in joining two murder cases together, that the press should not be inconvenienced. That is a dangerous sign of the way in which courts may sometimes be led to consider that matters that may be unjust are admissible for all sorts of extraneous reasons.
I have also heard it said in court more than once that, when considering whether something is in the interests of justice, it must also be considered whether it is in the interests of the prosecution that some evidence should be admitted. That is not necessarily conducive to fairness.
In setting out such headings, the proposals in the Lords amendment are somewhat excessive and may lead to decisions resulting in the inclusion of evidence that ought to be excluded if justice is the issue.
I feel strongly that the Government's proposal is much wiser, because it will leave it to judges to consider in all the circumstances whether justice is more or less likely to be done by the exclusion of evidence. Therefore, we are less likely to reach the American system before our procedures and rules of evidence are suitable for it.
I have one doubt. The courts have more or less traditionally—though less so in recent years—said that, if a matter is for the pure discretion of the judge, the Court of Appeal will not normally interfere. I should not be happy if a trial judge decided that evidence that had been unlawfully obtained should be admitted and the Court of Appeal said "We might not have included that evidence, but we have a more or less general rule that we do not interfere with the discretion of the judge."
There have been a number of recent cases in which the Court of Appeal has interfered with the discretion of a judge, but, as far as I know, it has never done so in a situation that requires something as positive as the exclusion of evidence that has been unlawfully obtained.
I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can reassure me, but I should be much happier if, on the basis of the Government's amendment, the Court of Appeal were prepared to concede a right of appeal and be prepared to overrule the discretion of a judge if it thought it proper to do so. However, that is in the realm of supposition and probably far from this Chamber's powers. In general, I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend in correcting what Lord Scarman, with the best will in the world, suggests.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As one who soldiered through the Committee, I add my felicitations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I was never sure in Committee whether he was officially on the Front Bench. Now that he is, the House will welcome him.
I listened with care to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) and I confess that he carried me a long way towards his conclusion. Unfortunately, I was briefed in an opposite direction, but his speech was so lucid and cogent that I am a little shaken in the conviction that I held when I came into the Chamber today.
Anyone who is not a lawyer is wise to read the report of the original debate in the House of Lords before venturing to speak on Lords amendments here. I read with fascination the report of the debate on the Scarman amendment. Four distinguished peers — the Lord Chancellor, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Denning and

Lord Scarman—could not agree on what the Scarman amendment meant in law. When four such dignitaries are unable to agree it would be presumptuous of me to say that I understand exactly how the Scarman amendment will affect the law in the courts.
It has been said that Scarman would take us several steps towards the American system. I lived and worked in the United States for a number of years and for a time I had to report on the American courts. If we were to go all the way with the Americans and, solely on a technicality, automatically excluded police evidence, we should put the best interests of justice at risk. As I read the amendment, I do not believe that Lord Scarman intends to exclude all evidence on a technicality.
The issue is whether, as Lord Scarman proposes, there should be a set of statutory criteria by which the courts should be guided or whether, as the Government propose, the courts should be left to use their discretion. The distinction between the two positions is real, although it may not be so widely understood outside the House.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that a common law rule already enables a judge to use his discretion. My advice from the Metropolitan police is that they have taken account of judicial decisions under which a court has, under common law, excluded evidence obtained improperly. For all practical purposes the Metropolitan police have regard for the fact that a court can already exclude evidence at its discretion. They would be loth to prosecute if there was a risk of a case failing because of the court's discretion.
5.15 pm
The Scarman amendment does not say that the court "may" exclude evidence but that it "shall". There is a difference because the judge is left with no discretion, and that cannot be right. The judge should have discretion. The Government amendment reflects the better argument, although I do not think that a great difference of principle is involved.
In practice, the judge is the best person to determine the matters before him, subject to the appeals system. I am not sure that it is necessary, although it may be desirable, for Parliament to set out the criteria by which a judge should be guided. However, I heard the telling remark by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde about judges being left in the dark by Parliament. I believe that it is better for a judge to have the discretion, more or less unfettered, save for the appeal power.
At present I do not stand high in the Home Secretary's estimation, but I have some practical suggestions for him. The Government, with the Opposition's support, are seeking to improve the criminal justice system — for example, by the tape recording of interviews — by introducing section 77 of the Criminal Justice Act— the pre-trial disclosure — and by implementing the recommendations of Lord Justice Watkins' working party which reviewed measures to reduce trials within trials for the mutual benefit of the prosecution and the defence. The whole House wants such practical improvements to be made, but if the Scarman amendment were carried it would cut across some of the practical steps that the Government are trying to take with all-party support.
If we nail down a series of specific criteria, we could interfere with achieving many useful and practical changes. The issue is between allowing a judge discretionary power to make his own judgment in the light


of the circumstances, including the circumstances under which evidence is obtained, and imposing a mandatory rule with specific criteria, as set out in the Scarman amendment. Just on balance, the Government's amendment has it.

Mr. Brittan: The issues between us have been outlined clearly, so I can be brief. There is a considerable gulf in principle, but the practical outcome may not be that great because we have moved together as a result of lengthy deliberations in both Houses. However, there is a difference in principle in relation to the onus of proof, as described by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). There is also a distinction between the use of the protective principle, as described by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), and the dominant test of the fairness of proceedings. That is a real difference of principle, and it is right that we should underline it. The better principle is that disciplinary matters should be dealt with by disciplinary procedures. The overriding consideration of admissibility of evidence should be its fairness in the context of the trial. That is why I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about progress towards the American tradition, and the lack of desire to move far in that direction.
On the practicalities, the main objection to the Government's proposals is that they lack guidance for the courts. That is not a cogent objection, because the guidance provided by Lord Scarman in his amendment would lead to complexity rather than clarity and would not assist the courts in their considerations. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said, the court must go through nine separate matters that are not always entirely consistent or reasonable, and the learned Law Lord had to deal with that dilemma.
The use of the exclusionary route meant that there had to be an exemption unless grave injustice was to be done to the public in a failure to convict the guilty. To produce the exemptions, criteria are set out in 1(b) and (c). As we have said, it is quite extraordinary that, by implication, evidence should be admitted if the case is sufficiently serious and cogent, even though it has been unfairly and improperly obtained. That is the circle that the Lords amendment seeks to square, but which I believe cannot be squared.
For that reason, I prefer the Government amendment emanating from my noble friend the Lord Chancellor, but developed since his original formulation. To provide the catechism that Lord Scarman did gives a spurious certainty and particularity to what will always be an uncertain test. The provision of a simple requirement based on the fundamental requirement of fairness gives the court a more flexible approach that better meets the case and goes less far in a direction that we would be wise to avoid.
For those reasons, I continue to commend the Government amendment to the House.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 154.

Division No. 475]
[5.22 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Harris, David


Alexander, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Arnold, Tom
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hayes, J.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hayward, Robert


Baldry, Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Henderson, Barry


Bendall, Vivian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hickmet, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Body, Richard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hirst, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bright, Graham
Holt, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Hooson, Tom


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Browne, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bruinvels, Peter
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Budgen, Nick
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Jackson, Robert


Butler, Hon Adam
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Butterfill, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cash, William
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Key, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Chapman, Sydney
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Lamont, Norman


Colvin, Michael
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Simon
Latham, Michael


Cope, John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Critchley, Julian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Crouch, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lilley, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Favell, Anthony
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lord, Michael


Fletcher, Alexander
Lyell, Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Robert


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David John


Freeman, Roger
McQuarrie, Albert


Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Major, John


Galley, Roy
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Gow, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hannam, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Montgomery, Fergus






Moore, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Speed, Keith


Moynihan, Hon C.
Speller, Tony


Mudd, David
Spencer, Derek


Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nelson, Anthony
Squire, Robin


Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Cranley
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Sumberg, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powley, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tracey, Richard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raffan, Keith
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waddington, David


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Walden, George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Warren, Kenneth


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rowe, Andrew
Whitfield, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitney, Raymond


Ryder, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Nicholas
Woodcock, Michael


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Tony Durant.


Sims, Roger



Skeet, T. H. H.





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cartwright, John


Anderson, Donald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clarke, Thomas


Ashdown, Paddy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cohen, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Barron, Kevin
Conlan, Bernard


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Cowans, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Craigen, J. M.


Boyes, Roland
Crowther, Stan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dalyell, Tam


Bruce, Malcolm
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Caborn, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Deakins, Eric


Campbell, Ian
Dewar, Donald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dormand, Jack


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Douglas, Dick





Dubs, Alfred
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry
Nellist, David


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Flannery, Martin
Park, George 


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman
Penhaligon, David


Golding, John
Pike, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Raymond (Ogrnore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, M.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sedgemore, Brian


Home Robertson, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stott, Roger


Janner, Hon Greville
Straw, Jack


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Johnston, Russell
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tinn, James


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Torney, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Wainwright, R.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael


McCartney, Hugh
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKelvey, William
Winnick, David


Maclennan, Robert



McNamara, Kevin
Tellers for the Noes:


McTaggart, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Allen McKay.


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed, as an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment: After clause 71, insert the following new clause— Exclusion of unfair evidence
'(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence.'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) wish to move his amendment to the new clause?

Sir Edward Gardner: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73

CONFESSIONS

Lords amendment: No. 210, in page 66, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is that we shall not be pressing ahead with the abolition of the rule that the out-of-court admission of a co-defendant be not admissible against his co-accused.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The House is entitled to a little more explanation than we have received. We are, I believe, dealing with amendment No. 210. I hope that I am right. The whole subsection is to be left out. I am not at all sure why. The subsection says:
(4) Where in any proceedings a confession is received in evidence by virtue of this section, it shall be admissible as evidence of any matter with which it deals, including any matter favourable to the person who made it.
I should have thought—I put this to the Opposition—that to drop the admissibility of evidence that is favourable to the person who made the confession from the confession clause is important, unless my hon. Friend the Minister can show that it is covered elsewhere in the clause. By dropping subsection (4) we appear to be leaving out of a trial confessional matter which may be favourable to the accused.

Mr. Mellor: The removal of subsection (4) relates to the rule that the Criminal Law Revision Committee advised might be abrogated—our present rule that the out-of-court admission of a co-defendant is not admissible against his fellow accused. The fact is that the remainder of the subsection means that the present law is not changed by its removal.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 211, in page 66, line 37, leave out from beginning to "was" in line 39 and insert—
(6) Evidence that a fact to which this subsection applies

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 212.

Mr. Mellor: This amendment, which was agreed to in another place, prevents a loophole from being exploited in the law on confessions. Before the passing of the amendment, if facts were discovered following a confession which was itself bad in part, the effect of subsection (6) ruled out any reference to the link between the confession and the discovery of those facts, even if such facts were discovered as a result of the good parts of a confession which otherwise would be admissible.
It is to correct that unintended fault in the original drafting that this amendment is preferred.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Again, I rise briefly to gain elucidation for those who will have to give effect to these provisions.
Could my hon. Friend confirm that I understood him correctly to mean that a confession which had been obtained might be excluded in part or in whole? If it is

excluded only in part, will matters in the remaining part —the good part—still be able to be used by the police and the judge for the purpose of obtaining a conviction?

Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the answer is yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 212 and 213 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords Amendment: No. 214, after clause 73, insert the following new clause—

Confessions by mentally handicapped persons

.—(1) Without prejudice to the general duty of the court at a trial on indictment to direct the jury on any matter on which it appears to the court appropriate to do so, where at such a trial—

(a) the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on a confession by him; and
(b) the court is satisfied—
(i) that he is mentally handicapped; and
(ii) that the confession was not made in the presence of an independent person,
the court shall warn the jury that there is special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the confession, and shall explain that the need arises because of the circumstances mentioned in paragaphs (a) and (b) above.

(2) In any case where at the summary trial of a person for an offence it appears to the court that a warning under subsection (1) above would be required if the trial were on indictment, the court shall treat the case as one in which there is a special need for caution before convicting the accused on his confession.

(3) In this section—
independent person" does not include a police officer or a person employed for, or engaged on police purposes;
mentally handicapped", in relation to a person, means that he is in a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; and
police purposes" has the meaning assigned to it by section 64 of the Police Act 1964.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose and effect of the amendment, which was moved by the Government and agreed to in another place after substantial debate and consultation, is to acknowledge the need for special protection for the mentally handicapped in the case of a confession made in the absence of an independent adult.
I hope that this move will be greeted warmly by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of a large international charity that provides sport and recreation for the mentally handicapped. I refer to the body known as Special Olympics. I have frequent contact with mentally handicapped persons. Equally, the House knows of my affiliation with the police service. Therefore, I feel capable of discussing this amendment from both the point of view of the mentally handicapped and from that of the police who frequently have the difficult and sometimes distressing task of interrogating those who, for one reason or another, are unable to look after themselves.
Over recent years, to my knowledge, police forces in the north, the midlands and the south, especially London, have given great assistance to mental handicap charities, particularly in competitive sport. What the police do for the more unfortunate members of our society is frequently ignored.
5.45 pm
It is right that the House should take on board that this amendment, reflecting to some extent what Ministers said in Standing Committee, works by way of the draft codes of practice which are published with the Bill. The clause triggers off the procedures governed by the small red book which will become part of the operating practice of the police service.
It is a good clause. It has very laudable objects which the House should welcome. However, there are one or two inconsistencies. Let me read the relevant subsection of the amendment. According to subsection (1)(b) the court must be satisfied that the person who has made the confession is mentally handicapped and
that the confession was not made in the presence of an independent person".
I wish to know what that means and how it is to work. It is annex C of the guidance which determines exactly who is "an independent person." In annex C we are dealing with urgent interviews. I hope that the Minister is aware of what his own draft codes of practice say, although I note with some concern that he does not appear to have the relevant passage before him. If so, it is quite extraordinary.
The code of practice which the police service will operate and which is triggered by the clause says that, in the case of an urgent interview,
If and only if an officer of the rank of superintendent or above considers that delay will involve an immediate risk of harm to persons or serious loss of or damage to property … an arrested juvenile or a person who is mentally ill or mentally handicapped may be interviewed in the absence of the appropriate adult.
There is nothing there about the independent person. In the statute it is provided that the independent person must be there. In the code of practice we have a different provision.
The House is entitled to a proper explanation. Otherwise those who must apply the law will wonder which is the master brief. That is relevent, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to it. He ought to clarify the position.
Moreover, it appears that to protect the mentally handicapped there will, in effect, be two separate screenings. There will be two methods by which the mentally handicapped will be protected from improper search for a confession. The first screening is the independent person; or, if there is not an independent person available and the matter is urgent, a certificate must be produced by a police superintendent. The second screening is the trial procedure, and that is outlined by the amendment. The court will have to be satisfied that the mentally handicapped person did not make a confession, save in the presence of an independent person.
The police will have to respect those two screens. However, what is not apparent are the circumstances in which the first of the two screens will apply. It is proper that the House should have an explanation of the precise circumstances in which the certificate of the superintendent is sufficient and the circumstances in which there must be an independent person present.
A further question concerns who this independent person is to be. There is no definition in the statute. I have worked with mentally handicapped people. At the weekend I attended a large meeting in Gloucester of 300 or 400 mentally handicapped children. I was impressed to see them competing with each other and enjoying themselves. We all wish to protect them. But it is very

important that those who have charge of mentally handicapped people—their parents or others, people from the adult training centres or from MENCAP —know exactly what is the position if, for one reason or another, someone in their care comes into the custody of the police and is subjected to interrogation, as a result of which he or she makes a confession.
Who is the independent person who must be present, as the statute will require, in order for the confession to be regarded by a court as legitimate? Is it to be a magistrate? I would suppose not. That would be too complicated. Is it to be any—dare I say—Tom, Dick or Harry that the police or anybody else can dredge up from the streets? That would not be sufficient. The independent person must know something about mental handicap and the reactions of mentally handicapped people under the pressure of interrogation, with all the risks of a false confession being produced.
There is a further point on which the House should demand an explanation. Mental handicap is not simply one thing. It is an enormous range of different sorts of problems. On the one hand, is the child affected by Down's syndrome. Everyone knows the problems involved. There are other more severe problems that have behavioural consequences—psychotic problems, and so on. Simply to say in statute that the police must find an independent person is not sufficient. There must be a guarantee that the independent person at least has a clue about the clinical and behavioural aspects of the mental illness or handicap from which the child in question is suffering.
None of those matters is spelt out properly in the code of practice, but the police will be expected to apply it. Those matters are not spelt out in the Bill, and, as I have said, there is a distinction between what is said in the Bill and what is contained in the code of practice.
I know that the House wants to make progress. So do I. I have been involved in the Bill too long to want to hold it up on this account, but it is insufficient for the Government simply to come in with the notion of an independent person to guarantee that a confession shall be admissible in the courts without saying who that independent person shall be or at least what shall be his quality, calibre and character and the circumstances in which he will be regarded by a court of law as acceptable for the purpose of guaranteeing that a confession was properly obtained.

Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has laboured mightily to find some points to make on the clause—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I did not labour mightily.

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that he is becoming a little querulous before the point at which he gave us notice that he would be querulous. I am sorry that he thought that I did not have with me the code of practice to which he referred. I did bring it with me through prescience that he would raise the points that he made in his speech.
The point is that, after we considered what was said in the other place about the vulnerability of mentally handicapped people, it seemed appropriate that we should make arrangements for the special protection of mentally


handicapped people. There were difficulties of definition in some areas of mental illness—in fact, the concept of mental illness was removed from the clause. My hon. Friend will see from subsection (3) of the new clause that "mentally handicapped" is defined as meaning that a person is
in a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
It is easier to determine the views of those qualified to deal with mental handicap than of those qualified to deal with mental illness, which can involve more subjective criteria.
In relation to the code of practice, my hon. Friend will be aware that all that is required under clause 73 is that the judge, in summing up, should issue a warning to the jury as to the special care that it needs in assessing a situation where for one reason or another—which may be a good reason; as set out in annex C to the code, or not such a good reason—the interview has been conducted in the absence of an independent person. Then the jury should be careful to look at other evidence before determining whether to convict. It is not an exclusionary clause. Therefore, in my respectful submission, the conflict between clause 73 and the code of practice does not arise, but in so far as it may be necessary to clarify matters in the code, I think that it is fair to say that I have made it clear, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, that these are drafts and these matters can be looked at again so that there is the maximum correspondence between them.
An independent person is defined negatively in subsection (3) as being someone who
does not include a police officer or a person employed for, or engaged on police purposes".
It is necessary to have the concept of an "independent person" in relation to mental handicap. While my hon. Friend mentioned mental handicap in the context of children, it can apply to people of any age. It would not be appropriate, as in the case of a juvenile, to specify that it must be a parent when one may be dealing with someone of mature or advanced years. An independent person is someone who is not involved in the investigation of offences. As I said to the House, we are ready to engage in any further discussions that are necessary to deal with those questions in the code. I dare say that the definition of an "independent person" will be expanded in the fresh draft as a result of points that have been made to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 215 and 216 agreed to.

Clause 78

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 217, in page 69, line 25, leave out "(2) The Police Complaints Authority" and insert "and"

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 218, 231, 234 and 242 to 245.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments represent changes that increase the effectiveness of the powers of the police complaints authority. Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 remove the relatively narrow scope of the authority's functions. Amendment No. 231 provides power to prescribe a time limit in cases called in by the authority. Amendment No. 234 is a consequential drafting change. Amendment No. 243 provides for the authority to give its approval of the appointment of an investigating officer where such an appointment has been necessary prior to the referral of the case to the authority. Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 broaden and enforce the authority's powers to impose requirements in respect of any investigation that is supervises.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 218 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 219, after clause 78, to insert the following new clause—Preliminary—
.—(1) Where a complaint is submitted to the chief officer of police for a police area, it shall be his duty to take any steps that appear to him to be desirable for the purpose of obtaining or preserving evidence relating to the conduct complained of.

(2) After performing the duties imposed on him by subsection (1) above the chief officer shall determine whether he is the appropriate authority in relation to the officer against whom the complaint was made.

(3) If he determines that he is not the appropriate authority, it shall be his duty—

(a) to send the complaint or, if it was made orally, particulars of it, to the appropriate authority; and
(b) to give notice that he has done so to the person by or on whose behalf the complaint was made.

(4) In this Part of this Act—
"complaint" means any complaint about the conduct of a police officer which is submitted—
(a) by a member of the public; or
(b) on behalf of a member of the public and
with his written consent;

"the appropriate authority" means—

(a) in relation to an officer of the metropolitan police, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and
(b) in relation to an officer of any other police force—

(i) if he is a senior officer, the police authority for the force's area; and
(ii) if he is not a senior officer, the chief officer of the force;

"senior officer" means an officer holding a rank above the rank of chief superintendent.

(5) Nothing in this Part of this Act has effect in relation to a complaint in so far as it relates to the direction or control of a police force by the chief officer or the person performing the functions of the chief officer.

(6) If any conduct to which a complaint wholly or partly relates is or has been the subject of criminal or disciplinary proceedings, none of the provisions of this Part of this Act which relate to the recording and investigation of complaints have effect in relation to the complaint in so far as it relates to that conduct."

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 220 to 230, 232, 233, 235 to 241, 246 to 251, 261, 268 to 271 and 282.

Mr. Shaw: This substantial group of amendments affects some related structural changes to part IX, which deals with disciplinary proceedings. The most important of those changes are introduced by the new clause set out in amendment No. 219.
The new clause inserted by amendment No. 219 replaces the present clause 79 and improves on it in several


significant respects. The effect of subsections (1) and (2) is that the duty on a chief police officer to record a complaint is distinguished from that of taking necessary preliminary investigative steps. By subsection (1) the chief officer receiving a complaint is required to take such steps, and only then, by subsection (2), is he required to consider whether the complaint actually falls to him to investigate. Subsection (3) provides that where he determines that the complaint does not fall to him—that is, where the complainant wrongly directed it to him—he has two further duties placed upon him: first, to ensure that the complaint gets to the right destination; second, to inform the complainant that he has done that.
Subsection (4) introduces the concept of conduct into the terminology. The police complaints authority, which the Bill establishes, will be concerned with investigations into the conduct of police officers. The amendment accordingly provides — for the first time — a proper definition of a complaint in terms of an officer's conduct. As a result the language in part IX of the Bill has shifted from the terms "complaint" and "allegation" to "conduct". Subsection (4) also introduces the concept of the "appropriate authority" — the chief officer or police authority with responsibility for handling the complaint in question. That is also the source of other related amendments that are incorporated in the group.
Subsection (5) excludes from the system complaints about the way in which the chief officer or acting chief officer exercises his functions of direction and control. Where the complaint is that a chief officer acted from a corrupt or unlawful motive, that, quite properly, will come within the complaints system. Where the complaint is about the way in which the chief officer is directing the force, however, the proper method of dealing with the matter is for the police authority to call for a report from the chief officer under section 12(2) of the Police Act 1964 rather than to mount a complaint investigation.
Subsection (6) repeats, though in a refined form, the existing exclusion from the system of complaints alleging conduct which is or already has been the subject of formal criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
The second new clause, amendment No. 224, deals with complaints against senior officers—those above superintendent rank. It is intended to replace the present clause 84. That clause operates by substituting "police authority" for "chief officer" in the relevant earlier provisions, and accordingly was placed after them. This clause, on the other hand, makes substantive provision for the recording and investigation of complaints against senior officers, and thus is more appropriately placed immediately after the equivalent clause dealing with junior officers.
6 pm
The plan of the clause is quite simple. Subsection (1) provides that it is the duty of the appropriate authority to record and investigate a complaint against one of its senior officers. The duty to investigate, however, is subject to a restriction in subsection (2) and the effect of this is to modify the system of informal resolution of minor complaints as it affects senior officers. Under clause 80, a complaint is not to be regarded as suitable for informal resolution unless the complainant gives his consent and the chief officer is satisfied that the conduct complained of, even if proved, would not justify a criminal or disciplinary charge.
The remaining subsections deal with the process of investigation of complaints against senior officers. Under subsection (3) the appropriate authority is required to appoint an officer from within or outside the force to investigate the complaint. Under subsection (4), the chief officer requested to provide an officer for this purpose is required to do so. Under subsection (5), the investigating officer is required to be of at least the rank of the officer against whom the complaint is made — the same condition which applies to complaints against junior officers. Under subsection (6), the investigating officer is required to submit his report to the appropriate authority, unless the investigation has been supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. This clause places the arrangements for dealing with complaints against senior officers on, I believe, a simpler and more logical footing.
I hope that this House will agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree to our basing on this group of amendments a discussion of the complaints procedure and the role of chief constables. I believe that amendment No. 282, in particular, allows us to do that. We wish to have a substantial debate on those issues within the rules of order.
As this is almost the last occasion on which I shall seek to speak on this Bill, perhaps I may also comment on the fact that we are now approaching the end of a record-breaking consideration. This Bill, which might be described as the No. 2 Bill, had its First Reading on 26 October last year. I believe that it would be difficult to find in the parliamentary records another Bill that has taken more than a year for its passage in one Session of Parliament—and that is in addition to the previous Bill which was considered before the general election.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who have worked on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) laboured through both Bills and my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) have worked extremely hard to improve this Bill.
I believe that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), too, has worked on the Bill since the beginning, but I am sorry that he interprets his duty' towards it as he has done today. I do not believe that such an approach assists the House in its wish to have a structured and serious debate. As I have already notified him, the hon. Gentleman knows that I do not say this as any personal reflection on him, but now that the Bill has reached its final parliamentary stages I believe that it would be appropriate for the Police Federation to consider reverting its previous practice of having an Opposition Member as its parliamentary adviser. That practice obtained for many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) undertook the duty. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds undertook it during the period of the Labour Government.
Without any personal reflection on the hon. Gentleman, I regard it as a serious error on the part of the Police Federation to have maintained an adviser from the Conservative party during the period of a Conservative Government because it identifies the federation and thus


the police with one political party. As the Home Secretary has said, the police must be loyal to Governments of all parties. Therefore, I do not believe that it is good for them to be identified with one party alone. Now that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has done his duty on this prolonged item of legislation, I believe that it would be wise and sensible for the federation to consider reverting to its previous practice of having as its parliamentary adviser a member of the principal Opposition party.
Since the Bill was introduced just over a year ago a great many changes have been made in it. Many have been beneficial and the next major debate will deal with one of the most beneficial changes in the entire passage of the Bill. Some changes, however, have not been beneficial and the Opposition must acknowledge some culpability in that some of those changes slipped by without our noticing. One change, however, is extremely worrying and it is covered by this group of amendments.
The change to which I refer was foreshadowed in the words of the Home Secretary earlier this month at the Conservative party conference when he announced that in the future the Government intended to prevent a local authority from being able to suspend a chief constable from duty except with the agreement of the police complaints authority. There is no doubt that when the Home Secretary made that statement he was speaking from an extremely partisan point of view. He said:
Nor will we stand idly by and let Left-wing police authorities undermine police operations … I will continue to take every action necessary to ensure that the chief constable's independent position is not jeopardised so that he can keep his dogs and horses and so that Left-wing politicians do not undermine his force.
First, the Home Secretary was making an assumption about the constitutional position of chief constables which is not necessarily borne out by the law. Secondly, he announced his intention to produce an ad hominem piece of legislation — not a general piece of legislation introduced for general purposes but a change in the law deliberately introduced to attack certain local authorities which he described as "Left-wing". I do not suppose that many Labour authorities would complain about being so decribed, but to use the phrase in a pejorative manner is highly objectionable.
My own police authority in Greater Manchester, for example, is excellent. The chairwoman of that authority, councillor Gay Cox, is an outstanding member of the local authority, deeply concerned about law and order but equally and properly concerned about the necessity for proper accountability of the police to the police authority.
There is an assumption on the part of chief constables and of the Government that chief constables have autonomy. I believe that the time may come when it is appropriate for Greater Manchester county council, the Merseyside county council or the West Midlands county council to test the situation in law. It may be important to test in law the presumed autonomy of chief constables in relation to the elected police authorities to which they are supposed to work. At present the Home Secretary and many chief constables assume that the chief constables have operational and policy autonomy regardless of the wishes and approach of the local authority. Many absurdities are committed by chief constables because of this assumption.
There is an increasing danger — I fear that the amendment will exacerbate and emphasise it — of

policing which is uncontrolled and self-generated, policing by the whim of the chief constable. One chief constable might have a special preoccupation with drinking and driving. He might over a short period breath-test 8,000 people, to the detriment of other police activities. Another might be preoccupied with pornographic bookshops and might divert his force to raiding such shops, to the detriment of the proper policing of the neighbourhood and the protection of its inhabitants from violence and burglary.
In the miners strike—which has lasted since March—we have seen an interpretation of the powers of chief constables which strikes me as extremely disturbing, although it is simply an exacerbation of the position which existed already for those who were able to see it. Chief constables have been acting not only without consultation with, and not only without the agreement of, but even in defiance of the police authority which appointed them and has to finance them.
If one studies the movement of police during the strike one finds, for example, that in Greater Manchester the chief constable is moving police against the wishes of the police authority to an area whose police authority does not wish to receive them. The chief constable is incurring expenditure against the wishes of his police authority and, by moving his men, is forcing expenditure upon the receiving authority, but neither the sending nor the receiving authority may refuse to pay the money which the ratepayers have to provide. In the end, of course, the Home Secretary will reimburse some of it.
Policing is taking place against the wishes of the police authority, and expenditure is being incurred against the wishes of the financing authority. The director of social services of the city of Manchester could not spend any appreciable sum of money on improving social services in the city—and we have the best social services of any large city—without the agreement of the social services committee and then of the city council. However, the chief constable has spent about £3 million on the miners strike so far—we do not even know exactly how much—against the wishes of the police authority, and our ratepayers have to find that money.
6.15 pm
Then there is the anomalous and disturbing question of the national reporting centre which is based at New Scotland Yard but organised by the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is relevant to the amendment because the chief officers concerned are the chief constables; the association is the chief constables' trade union. By an extraordinary and extra-constitutional procedure, our 43 police forces are under the orders of one man —currently Mr. McLachlan, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire. One hundred and twenty thousand policemen can be moved around the country from one month to another, at the expenditure so far of about £200 million of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. That activity is controlled from a control room in New Scotland Yard. It is not controlled by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and therefore is not answerable to the Home Secretary. It is not answerable to the ratepayers of Nottingham, who employ the chief constable who is the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, or to the ratepayers of any of the other 42 authorities which provide the remainder of the £200 million.
We have a de facto national police force which is totally extra-constitutional and not answerable in any way to anyone. I do not know even whether Mr. McLachlan is answerable to the executive of his association, but it is disgraceful that the executive of a trade union should control 120,000 policemen and their movements and activities.
So far as one can tell, what now exists, in embryo and in essence, is a national police militia under the control of one man who is answerable to no one except himself. That being so, we believe that this group of amendments is of profound concern. All the brooms chopped up by the sorcerer's apprentice are marching along out of anyone's control. The sorcerer's apprentice has let loose the national reporting centre and the 43 chief constables who can move their men and incur expenditure without any authority from the body which appoints and employs them.
That is bad enough. A surreptitious change is taking place in the nature of policing in this country which is dangerous to democracy. We have decided in this country —and the arrangement has stood the test of time—not to have a national police force. We have decided that the national police force under a Minister of the interior is a step on the way to a police state, and we have deliberately chosen to have no such thing. Yet, although Parliament has legislated to prevent the formation of a national police force, and although I believe that both sides of the House agree that there should be no national police force, insidiously and surreptitiously a national police force is coming into being with no constitutional arrangements to limit it. It is coming into being because of the interpretation of the 1964 Act which assumes that a chief constable is not answerable for what he does to his local authority. That is highly arguable.
It is true that nothing in the 1964 Act expressly prohibits police authorities from giving operational instructions. It would be healthy if a local authority sought to test the matter in court for the benefit of democracy. Present circumstances are dangerous, disturbing and apparently uncontrollable. That is bad enough. A local authority has two powers in relation to its chief constable. The first is the power to appoint him, subject to the approval of the Home Secretary, and the second is the power to dismiss him, subject to the agreement of the Home Secretary. I use the word "him" not for any sexist reason but simply because we have no women chief constables.
At the moment, local authorities have the right to suspend a chief constable, but the Home Secretary announced at Brighton that that power will be taken away unless suspension is approved by the police complaints authority, which the Bill will establish when enacted. That is even worse than the present arrangements for appointment and dismissal. After a fashion, the Home Secretary is answerable to the House, but the police complaints authority will be a quango and therefore not answerable in any way. Democratically elected local authorities will therefore lose an important residual power to the whim of a quango. When the Home Secretary used the invidious words that I have read at the Conservative party conference at Brighton, when he attacked Left-wing police authorities as undermining police operations and when he attacked Left-wing politicians as undermining police forces, no doubt he had in mind the miners' strike and the justified disagreement of local authorities to the deployment of their police forces without their consent.
However, there are other circumstances in which local authorities would wish to suspend their chief constables. We have an example now. The Derbyshire police authority has decided to suspend its chief constable for a reason that is wholly unrelated to the mining strike. It arises from allegations about his misuse of ratepayers' money in regard to decorating his office, expense accounts and other matters. Who can say that a local authority is to blame if it tries to protect its ratepayers from its chief constable misusing their money?
As far as we can learn from newspapers, the chief constable in question has decided to ask for early retirement. I am not suggesting that, by that, he is confirming the allegations that have been made against him, but it would be monstrous if a local authority which was properly vigilant in protecting its ratepayers' money was not permitted, without the agreement of the police complaints authority, to suspend a chief constable in order to have an impartial investigation of his activities undertaken. That would be to remove an important residual right of properly elected police authorities.
An important constitutional relationship — that between police forces and an elected authority, whether the Home Secretary or a local police authority, which appoints and finances him — is being changed. Moreover, that relationship is being changed not openly or with the agreement of Parliament but by stealth. The police's democratic accountability—nobody is above the law — is being destroyed. That change of the law is parallel to other changes in local Government that the Government are introducing such as rate capping, holdback and abolition of the metropolitan counties because it is a further move towards centralisation and a dangerous move away from local democracy.
We believe that basic democratic principles are at stake. We shall therefore vote against Lords amendment No. 219 to register our anger and dismay at what is happening.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am always glad when you are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but that is especially so now, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has touched on matters that affect arrangements in the House between me and the Police Federation. I should like to respond to what he said, although I am at a loss to see how his comments relate to this group of amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that we are considering nearly 65 amendments. He has rightly chosen to discuss those that relate to relations between the chief officer of police and his police authority. This group of amendments covers many other matters which the House should discuss. Lords amendment No. 219 provides in subsection (1) that when a chief officer examines a complaint against a member of his force,
it shall be his duty to take any steps that appear to him to be desirable for the purpose of obtaining or preserving evidence relating to the conduct complained of.
We should remember that we are discussing an internal investigation by a chief officer of a complaint about someone under his discipline. Such people can be treated harshly.
For other citizens, we have rightly provided many safeguards. When a police officer investigates an offence he may not do a wide range of things that would be inconsistent with the Bill's safeguards. There are no such


safeguards where a complaint is made against a police officer. The language is precise. It says that the chief officer
shall … take any steps that appear to him to be desirable".
That is unjust. There should be some limitation to what the chief officer can do.
I speak almost from a trade union point of view. I complained about this matter in Committee. I am disturbed that, after the Bill has gone through another place, the Government still stand on the principle that an accused police officer shall be subject to any steps that appear desirable to his boss. I shall give a disagreeable example. When we last debated the Bill the House's mind was rightly exercised by the powers that might be available for intimate search. We properly insisted on a series of safeguards such as a superintendent's certificate and the presence of medical practitioners. However, I am advised that there is nothing to stop a chief officer conducting an intimate search. That is unjust as a police officer under discipline will be treated differently from any other citizen.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is pursuing a case which should be considered. Although the balance is wrong, as he demonstrates, does he agree that it may be wrong because there is an imbalance elsewhere? If a chief constable wishes to prosecute one of his officers who may have been alleged to have committed a serious offence, he cannot take action himself without the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If that matter were rectified, there could be a better balance in the arrangements about which the hon. Gentleman complains.

Mr. Griffiths: I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) regarding this matter, as I do regarding many others. We are dealing not necessarily with criminal prosecution which would go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but with an internal complaint. The matter may not touch on crime. It may concern incivility, excessive use of force, rudeness to a senior officer, or one of the many occasions of bullying a junior officer. I am sorry that the Bill will not provide a proper safeguard.
In Committee, a safeguard giving police the right of access to a lawyer if they were subjected to demotion or dismissal was won. That helps, but it does not overcome the problem that the chief officer has absolute discretion and can operate like Captain Bligh of the Bounty. It is wrong that he should be able to do so in 1984.
My second small point concerns amendment No. 219. Subsection (4) deals with
any complaint about the conduct of a police officer, which is submitted—(a) by a member of the public"——
no one can complain about that because it is quite proper——
or (b) on behalf of a member of the public and with his written consent".
I am happy to see the words "written consent". They result from one of my amendments in Committee and ensure that legal eagles and ambulance-chasing lawyers cannot start proceedings against an officer simply because they have come across something which they think will help them to

complain. Such a position would have been odious. Those words ensure that a complainant must give his written consent to do so.
Nevertheless, I remain unhappy that the complaint mechanism can be started against a police officer without the member of the public making his own complaint. I regret that it would be sufficient for a lawyer, perhaps an hon. Member, or a social worker, to go to that person, get a complaint from him and set the mechanism operating, provided that the complainant signs it.
I recognise that there are occasions when a person who may be shy or for reasons of health cannot progress a complaint himself must be able to give someone else the opportunity to handle the case for him. I do not complain about that. However, it opens the door to what I can only describe as the civil or the race relations industries—I hope that I am not being unfair in saying that, but there are hangers-on in any good cause—getting on to a complaint without the complainant being properly involved.
It is not easy to deal with 70 amendments in one debate, but my third point concerns amendment No. 221. It inserts into clause 80:
If a chief officer determines that he is the appropriate authority in relation to an officer, about whose conduct a complaint had been made and who is not a senior officer, he shall record it.
I do not understand why he must record it in the case of a non-senior police officer. Entirely different arrangements apply to chief officers. I do not like that, because I believe in democracy in the nick. I do not see why there should be written into the statute a different procedure for recording a complaint against an officer up to the rank of chief inspector, presumably, from that for officers above that rank. That is an odious distinction.
Other amendments deal with the informal resolution of complaints. This is not the time or place to rehearse all the prolix arguments about informal procedure. The Police Federation, in which I have an interest—the right hon. Member for Gorton declared my interest in it for me—remains unhappy about the arrangement. It assumes that informal conciliation can proceed if the complainant agrees, but that the consent of the police officer to that procedure need not necessarily be sought or obtained. That is one-sided. There should be an even-handed approach between the two parties to the complaint.
I now turn to the graver issue which the right hon. Member for Gorton raised. He put the case from his point of view eloquently. During the summer months I have also been greatly exercised about the relationship between chief officers of police and their police authorities. Nearly three years ago I took part in a debate with the former hon. Member for Lincoln, Mr. Dick Taverne, who was a Labour Minister, subsequently defected into the fifth party and was duly dispatched from the House by his electorate. The heart of the debate concerned the relationship between chief officers of police and their police authorities. The right hon. Member for Gorton was right to say that the Bill will alter that relationship. I believe that it will alter it for the better. The right hon. Member believes that it will alter it for the worse.
The right hon. Member for Gorton was not entirely correct when he tried to delineate the powers of a police authority in respect of a chief officer. It can certainly hire him, as it does, but it can also fire him, with the consent of the Home Secretary. I shall return to that point when


I deal with the amendments that change that procedure. Henceforth, the police complaints authority will be included in that relationship.
A police authority has many other important powers vis-a-vis a chief officer of police. For example, it is largely responsible for the housekeeping of a force area. That is no small matter. It involves housing, the purchase of cars, the disbursement of large sums of money which determine the training facilities, accommodation and a large number of practical matters which assert the real authority of a police authority vis-a-vis its police force.
The negative side is the unfortunate way in which police authorities have used that power. For example, some years ago the South Yorkshire police authority determined that all police houses should burn coal. Consequently, some gas fires and electric heating which had previously been installed in police houses, were taken out. The police had to live in homes that were heated only with solid fuel. The local police authority wanted to assist its principal industry—the mining industry. However, it got into deep trouble, because at the material time the clean air legislation required that the only solid fuel that could be burnt was smokeless fuel. Unfortunately, the local coal board agencies were unable to produce a smokeless fuel, and it had to be imported from Belgium. That was an unfortunate result of the police authority's insistence on having its way, but it makes my point. The police authority has and exercises that power, I believe rightly.
A more particular power is that of police authorities to determine the availability of officers for training. One thing that I have regretted about the almost permanent state of verbal cold war that has arisen between chief officers and police authorities recently is that some authorities have impeded the training of police officers. I shall not go into detail, but I shall give one example. In Derbyshire, the police authority prevented several officers of the rank of inspector from going on courses that they must complete because they affect not only promotion and pay but the ability of the force to maintain public order and to do its job under the law. In one case, the police authority removed an inspector from a course that he was already attending. I complain about what police authorities do, but I am bound to recognise their power to do it.
Another example is that, regrettably, in many parts of the country there is incompatible police equipment. When I visited Toxteth during the riots I was appalled to discover that some special units from different forces could not talk to each other because they had incompatible personal radios. The reason was clear: the police authorities could choose which equipment their forces should have. I complain about that because it is operationally bad. It will not do for the right hon. Member for Gorton to say that police authorities have no power when they can make such a thing happen. The right hon. Gentleman's description of the powers of police authorities over their chief constables was inadequate.
The gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and the subject about which the House will decide this evening, was differences of opinion between a police authority and its chief officer about the conduct of his job. There are two distinct aspects to the argument. The first is what I would describe as general policing policy. The local police authority has a power, a duty and, I believe, a right to play a large part in setting the general policing policy of its area. If authorities will operate under the

Police Act 1964, they can do that. They do so in most police areas. Unfortunately, some police authorities do not know how to work the 1964 Act. There are many reasons for that, but often a lack of know-how on the part of the police authority leads it to fail to exercise its powers to effect general policing policy.
The second aspect is police operations. There I part company with the right hon. Member for Gorton in so far as he appeared to be suggesting that a police authority should have the power to intervene in police operations. The problem is one of definition. If a chief officer says to his police authority, "That is not general policing policy but operations, and therefore you can have nothing to do with it", he will separate himself from the authority, be regarded as arrogant and unfriendly and asking for trouble. The area of definition between general policing policy and specific operational policing requires much understanding between the authority and the chief officer if it is to be operated correctly. Most operate it correctly, but some do it wrongly; and, unfortunately, the areas where it has gone wrong are primarily those that have been most affected by the miners strike.
Other hon. Members are more knowledgeable about the immediate details of the miners strike than I, although I have visited five mining areas in connection with the police. Where a police authority, because it is caught up politically or emotionally with what is happening in an industrial dispute, allows its feelings to spill over so that it begins to exercise its authority over police operations, it can go too far. That has frequently happened during the miners strike. It is entirely wrong for some police authorities to forbid their chief officers to acquire riot equipment. None of us likes riot equipment—the police least of all. No police officer whom I know joined the force to be a riot policeman; he joined to be an ordinary policeman. But where the law is at risk and the Queen's peace must be maintained, the equipment must be available. Therefore, it is wrong for some police authorities to deny to their chief officers the right to obtain that equipment.
6.45 pm
The consequence is incompatibility of equipment, with one area having such equipment and a neighbouring area having none. When the police must provide mutual aid in different areas, they frequently discover that they cannot do so because of the incompatibility of equipment. That is an example of police authorities interfering in operations in an improper way and limiting what their chief officers can do.
The right hon. Gentleman's main point was whether it is sensible to insert the police complaints authority between a police authority that has moved into operations and a chief officer. On balance, I believe that it is; but I am not persuaded that the police complaints authority will be a splendid organisation. I am not sure whether it will be a good mechanism for this task. Nevertheless, it is the one that hon. Members considered in Committee, it is the one we have, and I believe that it will help greatly.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Home Secretary's speech at the Conservative party conference. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to say that he would seek to protect chief officers of police against police authorities that were using political prejudice against their operations. He could do no less than that. If he had done less than that, he would have been derelict in his great


office of state. Therefore, he proposes that where a chief officer is wrongly attacked by a police authority for political reasons, the Government will provide this new mechanism. On balance, it is a sound proposal and I hope that the House will carry it.
I conclude as I began. I ask the right hon. Member for Gorton to lend his attention on this, because it is a personal matter that he raised to which I am entitled to reply in a personal way. My relations with the Police Federation are exactly those that were devised by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). Perhaps it is about time that this matter was cleared up. In general, I, too, have believed that there is an advantage in the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation being a member of an Opposition party, because he must frequently attack the Government. I am about to attack the Government vigorously. During the years, I have had to negotiate with Labour and Conservative Governments in respect of pay, pensions and conditions, but mainly on legislation.
Although the right hon. Member for Gorton will recall mainly the occasions on which I found it necessary to disagree with him, because the Police Federation disagreed with him, he is unaware of the numerous occasions on which I found it necessary to disagree with the Conservative Government. He knows that I am obliged to him for the fact that, with his help, I obtained a valuable amelioration of the police discipline code in respect of the provision of lawyers. That is an ample illustration that it is perfectly possible—sitting on either side of the House makes no difference—to pursue a matter on its merits.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for responding to what I said in the way that he has. However, this is not about whether the hon. Gentleman attacks the Government from time to time. At issue is the fact that for the past 11 years the police have identified themselves with one political party—the the Conservative party—by by having an adviser from that party. What took place under the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 followed the same practice as led the police to have as their adviser, first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I am not questioning whether the hon. Gentleman agreed with his Government, but rather that by maintaining a Conservative Member of Parliament as its adviser for the past five and half years under a Conservative Government—therefore, a Conservative party adviser for 11 years—the Police Federation is identifying with the Conservative party. That is wrong, and a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go too far down this road, I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to this group of amendments.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman and I are obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing this matter to have gone as far as it has. Indeed, I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to get away with it when he raised it in the first place. I am merely responding and feel lucky that I am able to do so. I shall, however, do so briefly.
First and foremost, it is for the federation to make its own choice. It has that absolute right, and it has so

decided. Secondly, there is no question of identifying a particular Member of this House with a particular Government. If one were a member of the Government, that would be a different matter, but a Back Bencher makes his own judgment——

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Oh?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about that, he need only recall that in Committee I frequently voted with Labour Members because I thought that it was right to do so. If he stays around later this evening he will find something similar happening yet again.
Members of the Police Federation are no doubt listening, but at the end of the day I represent the electorate of Bury St. Edmunds in this House. I do not represent the Police Federation or the Conservative Government. I represent all the people who, regardless of party, sent me here. What I do for the Police Federation is on my own judgment. I am not accountable to it, to this Government or to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall continue to do the job so long as I judge it to be right, so long as my constituents send me here to do it, and so long as the Police Federation is satisfied that I shall continue to be its adviser.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall not detain the House for long, but I have been tempted to speak in the debate to relate my personal experiences. Whatever I say is in no way an attack on the police, but I wish to draw attention to the concern now felt in the mining communities arising from the miners' strike. It is right and proper that those who live in the mining areas have an assurance that they will get a fair crack of the whip within the framework of the law.
We have all heard about the differing attitudes of chief police officers. In the early days we heard about the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall and the Dartford tunnel incident. On television we heard the chief constable of Manchester say that he would not have taken the same decision. Only yesterday the chief constable of Nottingham said on "Face the Press" that he was completely in charge of the situation now.
One understands that chief constables are responsible for the operation of their police forces. Given that to be the case, one assumes that the chief constable of north Yorkshire was responsible for the incident which I witnessed on 7 September this year. On that day I visited the Kellingley colliery which is on the perimeter of my constituency. Most of its employees are my constituents. I went there because I was concerned about some of the reports and television pictures that had appeared. We also have seen pictures of a television company car being overturned and set on fire. My line has always been that if one behaves in this way one expects the police to maintain the law. That is where I have always stood, and that is where I now stand.
However, on that day I experienced something that I never thought possible; indeed, I thought that I was dreaming. When I arrived, about 200 pickets were present. There was also a line of policemen opposite at the entrance to Kellingley colliery. Later I saw two groups of policemen march from the eastern side of the colliery, one wearing riot helmets and the other wearing riot helmets and carrying small shields. A van then arrived carrying


two men and was halfway through the colliery gates before the pickets realised it. I was standing about 20 yards away as an observer.
There was a push from the pickets towards the police, who held their line, The van went on its way. The push stopped and the men turned around to go back towards the town of Knottingley. An order was then given, and when the men's backs were turned the police charged them and knocked some of them to the floor by using truncheons or helmets. On that occasion there had been no provocation from the pickets.
Another order was then given, and the policemen with the riot shields charged in to assist their colleagues who had already knocked men to the floor. The way in which the men were manhandled was awful——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate his remarks to the complaints procedure.

Mr. Lofthouse: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall relate what I am saying to the amendments because it concerns the amendments, and you will appreciate why a little later.
The police were not satisfied with that, and one of them decided to charge me. He knocked me flying and used a filthy foul name. I shall not go into any further details because I have complained through the complaints procedure.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the police were aware of his identity?

7 pm

Mr. Lofthouse: As far as I am aware, they were not.
The police were then called off and went back into their lines. They were then pointing out men whom they were going to grab next. People who had done nothing wrong were arrested, taken away and charged.
This incident is related to the amendment because we are told that chief constables are responsible for operations. However, if one makes a complaint—as I have—it must be against the individual, not the chief constable. In this instance, if the chief constable of Yorkshire is responsible for the operations on that day on that picket line, what avenue does an individual have to complain against him? One can complain about one of his officers, but to whom is that officer responsible? As far as I can see, no one is directly responsible for such operational duties.
The Minister, the Government, the House and the country should be aware that because these people can see no avenue to get at the person responsible for such incidents, great hatred for policemen is created in the mining communities. That hatred has never been seen before in the 58 years that I have lived in such communities. I am worried about what will happen after the strike is over. We all hope that we shall get back to the days of good relations between the local police forces and the miners. However, if these people do not have an avenue of justice, and when all that they can see is thousands of arrests, charges and people being found guilty, but no examples of policemen being brought to justice, there will be trouble. We must be able to show these people that the chief constable who is responsible can be held responsible. If we do not, this bitterness will go on.
I have had correspondence with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who has outlined what the law is in these cases. This may be the law, and policemen may have to work within the framework of the law, but in practice does it work? I challenge the Minister to show us whether there have been any cases in which policemen have been found guilty of misusing their powers and breaking the law.
On the day of which I have spoken, I saw policemen breaking the law. They were guilty people. I have already said that there is an inquiry going on and I have no objections to how it is taking place, but at the moment the man responsible — the chief constable — cannot be brought to book for the action of the officers whom he commands. If we cannot find a way to ensure that, we shall not get back to the former understanding between mining communities and policemen. We hope that we can, and we have an obligation to make sure that we do.

Mr. Hardy: I wish to be brief, but it is appropriate that another hon. Member representing a coalfield constituency should speak, not least because I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has dealt with a serious problem. It is outrageous and astonishing that a Member of Parliament should have had that experience and that it has received scarcely any public attention. When a Member of Parliament, exercising his responsibilities in his constituency, is assaulted and abused in the way that my hon. Friend has been, and without any reason or provocation—my hon. Friend's attitude has been entirely responsible—we roust give the matter serious consideration.
I recognise that the Bill is very important, and that this batch of amendments is also important, not least because it refers to the powers of chief constables. We can make as many arrangements as we like. We can have the greatest multitude of amendments that we can possibly devise about police power, but fundamentally police power must rest on the basis of consent and respect. In areas such as mine, I am fearful about the loss of respect and the element of contempt that has been brought into police-public relations.
Whatever the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) may say about the wisdom or otherwise of the South Yorkshire county council requiring the police officers' houses to be heated by coal — a perfectly satisfactory source of domestic heating which I hope that I shall maintain myself, supplies of anthracite over the next few months permitting—the hon. Gentleman will be aware that our police force had a high reputation, and that relationships in South Yorkshire between police and public were excellent. I know that there were only seven complaints against the police throughout the 1970s, three of which were relatively slight. I have no grounds for lack of confidence in the local police force.
The Government may feel that by the changes that they are making in the law they will be contributing to maintaining an efficient police force. However, unless they recognise that something has to be done, whether in this Bill or in some other way, and unless they recognise that there must be some urgent and serious action to restore good relationships between the police and the public, then all these arrangements will——

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the mining areas where


there has been reasonable picketing of some dozens of miners there has been no trouble between the police and the pickets? Has not the trouble been where there have been armies of pickets, and frequently the police have been put in an impossible position because of those armies of pickets?

Mr. Hardy: There may be some general evidence to support the conclusion of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), but it would be dangerous for us to assume that that is always the case. There have been unsatisfactory incidents where the numbers of pickets have been small and one such case was dismissed in the courts recently. I referred to that case in a debate on 23 July.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to that debate. We are dealing with complaints procedures and related matters.

Mr. Hardy: So that I can fulfil your request, Mr. Speaker, and also maintain the brevity that I promised, I shall conclude my remarks by referring the Minister, if not the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding, to the debate on 23 July, which is relevant to these amendments. If we are to ensure that we return to decency in police-public relationships, these amendments may not be helpful. If they are the Government's last words, I am fearful of the future.
The Minister may insist on the Bill being completed this evening, but I suggest that he reconsiders the Government's response to the call which I and many of my hon. Friends made in July that there be an impartial inquiry into the miners strike. If we have that impartial inquiry — I stress that it must be impartial because I am not seeking to pursue any partisan interest—that would be a not unreasonable qualification of the Government's position as demonstrated in their amendment. The experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford and the desperate anxieties that are felt in Britain's coalfields require that the Government should approach the matter with the flexibility and common sense that I suggest is necessary.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I recognise and fully understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Members for Fitzwilliam — if that is what I may call the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) — and for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford would not expect me to comment further on the incident that he described other than to say that the matter is to be fully investigated.
The hon. Member for Wentworth rightly drew attention to the fact that it behoves us all to return as quickly as we can to normal policing with community consent. I can assure him that that is the profound desire of the police service, from the top to the bottom, in relation to the position in which it has found itself in the past few months. However, the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) was perfectly fair. The police have had their resources stretched and have experienced real tension in order to deal with a matter of public order, which is surely at the root of the matter we are discussing. The Bill seeks to provide a framework

within which policing can continue broadly to serve the country to a standard higher than anywhere else in the world that we care to name.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edumnds (Mr. Griffiths) raised some specific points. He drew attention to amendment No. 221, but it is my understanding that by recording the complaint in relation to an officer about whose conduct a complaint has been made and who is not a senior officer he is doing more than recognise that in the disciplinary procedures there are separate disciplinary actions in relation to other ranks and those of the rank of assistant chief constable and above. There is a point at which the policing authority becomes a disciplinary authority for senior officers. It does no more than record that a separation is to be made at the outset of the complaint.
My hon. Friend referred to the possible draconian powers of chief police officers including, dare I say, intimate searches. I must remind him that under the Bill as amended last Thursday there is no power for police officers to conduct an intimate search other than in the case of a class A drug. Therefore, that should not deter him.
A much more cogent point related to the position of chief officers under the clause. That was the point on which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) opened the debate and it is a crucial point. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman is wont to select this as another piece of evidence that there is a fundamental shift in the tripartite structure of policing which the country has enjoyed for so long. Let me try to nail that point firmly to the floor. There is no intention to depart from the well tried and tested belief that policing in Britain should have a significant local authority responsibility, a significant Government responsibility, and a significant independent responsibility by chief officers of police to exercise their functions without over-intervention from either of the other parties.
The problem that we have been up against in recent months, as exemplified by the comments of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, is that the pressures have been so great that the fabric of the tripartite arrangement has shown signs of creaking. There have been police authorities — the right hon. Member for Gorton knows Greater Manchester much better than I do — which have had differences of view with the chief officers of police. There have been police authorities — South Yorkshire comes to mind—which have taken or sought to take actions in an attempt to change certain aspects of police policy against the wishes of their chief officer of police. There have also been many — happily the majority of police authorities — which have been working even in areas which have been under extreme pressure, as current events have shown, which have got on perfectly well with their chief officers of police.
7.15 pm
However, I accept that there is a need to examine the structure at this time and to ensure that we either make it work or amend it to work better. It is in that context that the proposals of which the amendments form part come before the House. In governing the actions of chief police officers there is a need to make a certain change and I shall describe the precise change which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has sought to introduce.
The right hon. Member for Gorton referred to another example of change—the use of the national reporting


centre. It has been well established in the House that the NRC was first set up way back in the 1960s—I think in 1964——

Mr. Kaufman: 1972.

Mr. Shaw: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's decision. I thought that it was earlier than that— 1964 or 1968.

Mr. Kaufman: It is not my decision; it is an answer that was given to me by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Shaw: In that case it must be right.
The fact remains that over the past 12 years the NRC has been operating when called upon as a mechanism—no more than that—under which chief officers of police may distribute resources among themselves at their individual request. There is no control mechanism in the NRC that belongs to the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded, nor is there any control mechanism that requires the NRC to operate under any other than the aegis of the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is a distribution point for voluntary aid. That is the way in which it is currently operating. It is not the commencement of that wedge which would drive the tripartite arrangement into a central arrangement.
The right hon. Gentleman stressed the position of chief officers. The amendments under discussion provide for a change in the way in which the police complaints authority operates. There was in the Bill as it left the House a fairly detailed description of the police complaints authority and its powers. Under amendments Nos. 217 and 218 those detailed powers have been eliminated and the police complaints authority may now investigate matters which can come from any source.
The Government accept that there is a need to use the police complaints authority in its wider role in one area only. The existing disciplinary system established under the Police Act 1964 provides that the disciplinary authority for police officers of the rank of assistant chief constable and above is indeed the police authority. That is a right and proper arrangement. Therefore, the Bill provides for it to continue and for the formalisation and clarification of the procedures for investigating complaints against senior officers.
However, there is one power which the police authority has as a disciplinary authority which is potentially capable of misuse, and which, should it be carelessly misused, could produce a difficult situation. I am referring to the power of suspension. The authority has the power to suspend an officer at the time it appears that he may have committed either a criminal or disciplinary offence but before any inquiry into the case has been carried out. That important power is at present unlimited. The House will recognise just how crucial a power it is to the morale, efficiency and effectiveness of any police force if a chief officer is to be suspended and put in limbo irrespective of whether charges which may be brought are found to have been proven. The seriousness of any suspension of an officer can be damaging to the effectiveness of a force.
Accordingly, we propose to provide in regulations that any decision by a police authority to suspend an officer of the ranks in question should be subject to ratification by the police complaints authority. We expect such a case to be a rare event, but it is important that the intention to

suspend an officer of senior rank should be subject to review by an independent, non-partisan organisation. The complaints authority will achieve that status and will acquire nationwide responsibilities and experience of the complaints and discipline system. It Will be in an unrivalled position to determine such issues.
The regulations will require that the decision of a police authority to suspend a senior officer will have to be referred to the complaints authority for ratification. The complaints authority will be required to consider whether the case meets the criteria for suspension that we shall be setting out in regulation and then to notify the police authority of its conclusion.
The proposed arrangements are not intended to interfere with the legitimate exercise by a police authority of its disciplinary powers; they are meant solely as a safeguard for senior officers against the remote possibility of an arbitrary or unjust exercise of the power of suspension. In that light, they will be seen as reasonable provisions in dealing with disciplinary action affecting a senior officer.
In due course, we shall be publishing the regulations and no doubt they will come before the House so that hon. Members may examine and discuss them. We ask the House to agree with the amendments so that important changes in the police disciplinary procedures may be proceeded with as soon as possible.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 146.

Division No. 476]
[7.21 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Crouch, David


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Fletcher, Alexander


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Body, Richard
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Freeman, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bruinvels, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nick
Goodlad, Alastair


Butler, Hon Adam
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cartwright, John
Grist, Ian


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cope, John
Hayes, J.


Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Barney


Critchley, Julian
Hayward, Robert






Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hickmet, Richard
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steven


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley


Hirst, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Ottaway, Richard


Holt, Richard
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Powley, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Price, Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Renton, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rowe, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lester, Jim
Ryder, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McQuarrie, Albert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Major, John
Spence, John


Malins, Humfrey
Spencer, Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mellor David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sumberg, David


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tapsell, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mudd, David
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)





Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitfield, John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Trippier, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Waddington, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Waldegrave, Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Watson, John



Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Gourlay, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter


Ashdown, Paddy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Home Robertson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bruce, Malcolm
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Caborn, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Thomas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Edward


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McCartney, Hugh


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McNamara, Kevin


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Cowans, Harry
Maxton, John


Craigen, J. M.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Douglas, Dick
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pendry, Tom


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pike, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ellis, Raymond
Prescott, John


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Radice, Giles


Ewing, Harry
Randall, Stuart


Fatchett, Derek
Redmond, M.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Robertson, George


Fisher, Mark
Rogers, Allan


Flannery, Martin
Rooker, J. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foster, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman
Sedgemore, Brian


Golding, John
Sheerman, Barry






Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Tinn, James


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Torney, Tom


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Straw, Jack



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Allen McKay.


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 220 to 251 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 252, after clause 84, to insert the following new clause—

Steps to be taken after investigation—general—

".—(1) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority, on receiving
(a)report concerning the conduct of a senior officer which is submitted to them under section [Investigation of complaints against senior officers] (6) above; or
(b)copy of a report concerning the conduct of a senior officer which is sent to them under section 83(8) above, to send a copy of the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless the report satisfies them that no criminal offence has been committed.

(2) Nothing in the following provisions of this section or in sections [Steps to be taken where accused has admitted charges] to 88 below has effect in relation to senior officers.

(3) On receiving—
(a) a report concerning the conduct of an officer who is not a senior officer which is submitted to him under section 80(8) above; or
(b) a copy of a report concerning the conduct of such an officer which is sent to him under section 83(8) above, it shall be the duty of a chief officer of police—
(i) to determine whether the report indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed by a member of the police force for his area; and
(ii) if he determines that it does, to consider whether the offence indicated is such that the officer ought to be charged with it.

(4) If the chief officer—
(a) determines that the report does indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed by a member of the police force for his area; and
(b) considers that the offence indicated is such that the officer ought to be charged with it,
he shall send a copy of the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(5) Subject to section [Steps to be taken where accused has admitted charges] (1) below, after the Director has dealt with the question of criminal proceedings, the chief officer shall send the Authority a memorandum, signed by him and stating whether he has preferred disciplinary charges in respect of the conduct which was the subject of the investigation and, if not, his reasons for not doing so.

(6) If the chief officer—
(a) determines that the report does indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed by a member of the police force for his area; and
(b) considers that the offence indicated is not such that the officer ought to be charged with it,
he shall send the Authority a memorandum to that effect, signed by him and stating whether he proposes to prefer disciplinary charges in respect of the conduct which was the subject of the investigation and, if not, his reasons for not proposing to do so.

(7) Subject to section [Steps to be taken where accused has admitted charges] (1) below, if the chief officer considers that the report does not indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed by a member of the police force for his area, he shall send the Authority a memorandum to that effect, signed by him and stating whether he has preferred disciplinary charges in respect of the conduct which was the subject of the investigation and, if not, his reasons for not doing so.

(8) A memorandum under this section—

(a) shall give particulars—
(i) of any disciplinary charges which a chief officer has preferred or proposes to prefer in respect of the conduct which was the subject of the investigation; and
(ii) of any exceptional circumstances affecting the case by reason of which he considers that section 88 below should apply to the hearing, and
(b) shall state his opinion of the complaint or other matter to which it relates.

(9) Where the investigation—
(a) related to conduct which was the subject of a complaint; and
(b) was not supervised by the Authority,
the chief officer shall send the Authority—
(i) a copy of the complaint or of the record of the complaint; and
(ii) a copy of the report of the investigation,
at the same time as he sends them the memorandum.

(10) Subject to section 87(4A) below—
(a) if a chief officer's memorandum states that he proposes to prefer disciplinary charges, it shall be his duty to prefer and proceed with them; and
(b) if such a memorandum states that he has preferred such charges, it shall be Ins duty to proceed with them."

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments Nos. 253 to 260 and amendment No. 272.

Mr. Shaw: Amendments Nos. 252 and 253 replace clause 85 as it left this House. Clause 85 deals with the steps to be taken by the chief officer after a complaint investigation is completed, the decision whether to pass the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and whether to bring disciplinary charges. Major change was necessary. Following the debate in Committee, the criterion has been changed for reference to the DPP of minor criminal allegations.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2.53 to 261 agreed to.

Clause 90

CONSTABULARIES MAINTAINED BY AUTHORITIES OTHER THAN POLICE AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 262, in page 78, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(1) An agreement for the establishment in relation to any body on constables maintained by an authority other than a police authority of procedures corresponding to any of those established by or by virtue of this Part of this Act may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, be made between the Authority and the authority maintaining the body of constables.

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments Nos. 263 to 267.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments give effect to undertakings given in Committee.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Which other bodies of constables does the Minister have in mind?

Mr. Shaw: We accepted the argument of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that non-Police Act forces such as British Transport police and the Atomic


Energy Authority police should be included and be permitted to adopt the new complaints procedures. That is how the amendment originated.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 263 to 267 agreed to.

Clause 95

DISCIPLINE REGULATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 273, in page 81, line 29, after "committed;" insert—
(aa) for racially discriminatory behaviour to be made a specific disciplinary offence;

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I start by assuring the House that it is inconceivable that this Government would take the position that I am asking the House to take this evening if we thought that doing so would harm or cast a slur upon the police. I can say without fear of contradiction that the degree of support that we have rightly and consistently given the police is unparalleled. Everyone is particularly conscious of the enormous burden that they are shouldering in connection with the miners' dispute. They face physical assault and wholly unjustified attacks and my colleagues and I have been at the forefront in defending them — not only verbally but financially, legally and in every other possible way.
When it comes to the lot of the individual policeman, as opposed to the tasks to be performed by the police service as a whole, we have adopted the same approach. We have implemented the Edmund-Davies report on police pay in full and stuck to it, and in this Bill we are providing for the first time what has long been sought—legal representation for police officers in serious disciplinary hearings.
The Bill will provide valuable powers for the police: clearer powers generally, more powers to stop and search and more power to search for evidence of crime. We have consistently resisted repeated efforts during the course of the lengthy consideration of the Bill to cut the powers of the police. It is now important to get on the statute book an important piece of legislation which is of great value to the police and to the community. It is against the background of that record and that approach that I strenuously rebut any suggestion that the Government would even contemplate being party to any step which would damage the genuine interests of the police service.
The House will recall the origin of the amendment. It was a recommendation by Lord Scarman in his report on the Brixton disturbances, published in 1981. Following the recommendation, the previous Home Secretary consulted the police advisory board, on which are represented the police, staff and local authority associations.
The board was unanimous that there could be no question of racially discriminatory behaviour being tolerated in the police service. The police service is totally opposed to such behaviour. It is wholly deplored. The board did not think that such behaviour should not lead to disciplinary action, but it noted that such behaviour could be dealt with under the existing police discipline code, and it therefore recommended that the creation of a specific disciplinary offence would not be appropriate. It believed

that racially discriminatory behaviour was not tolerable to the police, that it should be a disciplinary offence and that it was already a disciplinary offence. That position was accepted by the Government. It remains our view that a specific offence is unnecessary because the existing provisions of the code, such as discreditable conduct and abuse of authority, are wide enough in their scope to catch all conceivable instances of racially discriminatory behaviour. The House will be aware that the position was put most forcefully by my noble Friend Lord Elton in the recent debate in another place. As the House will also be aware, those arguments did not prevail there.
The decision before this House is, therefore, whether to reject the amendment that has been made, and take out of the Bill a provision that has been put in it. That is not the same as deciding whether to put it in in the first place. The creation of this new specific disciplinary offence will not materially affect the reality of disciplinary procedures, because anyone who would fall foul of it would fall foul of existing disciplinary provisions. Therefore, it does not in any way prejudice the position of police officers; nor does it in any way impute racial discrimination to the police service.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. and learned Friend, with the considerable authority of his office, said that the amendment would not damage the police service. If so, why are the police advisory board and the police staff associations unanimous that it should not be accepted? Why is his judgment so much better than theirs?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend could not have heard me explain that my view has not changed. As recently as 10 days ago, in another place, the Government opposed the amendment. My hon. Friend is aware that the basis on which the board and the Government did not feel it necessary to introduce such a provision was that the conduct that it sought to meet, which would be reprehensible if committed by a police officer, amounted to a disciplinary offence under another heading. There is a difference between something that is not necessary, and whose inclusion therefore one cannot support, and something that is objectionable because it imposes a new burden on the police service or introduces a new hazard.
When considering not what one supports and asks the House to include, but what one asks the House not to take out, different considerations arise. That is not an unreasonable position. The amendment does not make any practical difference to what is or is not a disciplinary offence. It does not in any way imply racial discrimination by the police service—another suggestion that has been made. One might just as well say that the offences of discreditable conduct and abuse of authority imply that the Government believe that those malpractices are characteristic of the police service.
The question has been asked: why single out the police service? I hear echoes of that from the Government Benches. By the very nature of their sensitive work and of the powers rightly given to them, it is inevitable that Parliament should control closely the way in which police work is carried out. That is, in part, what the Bill is about.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain how police work is less or more sensitive today than it was 10 days ago?

Mr. Brittan: I did not suggest that it was. I have explained why it is right that police work should be controlled, why the Bill controlls police work in considerable detail——

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose——

Mr. Brittan: I can deal with only one point at a time, although I am flattered that my hon. Friend thinks that I can deal with two.
Police work is controlled by the Bill. It is not unreasonable that racial discrimination, if proved, should be a disciplinary matter. That is the position of the police, and has been all along. The only question is whether there should be a specific provision to that effect. I have made it clear that I do not think that such a provision is necessary. I have not changed my view. There is a difference between a provision that is not necessary and one that is detrimental.
7.45 pm
There has been a suggestion that the provision is not only detrimental to the police but singles them out. It is not surprising that there should be a closer regulation of police powers than of other powers. It is simply not true that the police are being singled out by having imposed upon them alone a public requirement that they should not engage in racially discriminatory behaviour.
Since 1973, the immigration rules, which have the force of law and regulate the work of the immigration service, have included the provision:
Immigration officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom.
The fact that those provisions are in the rules rather than in the statute does not make any practical difference to their importance, because they have the effect of law.

Sir Bernard Braine: Are the provisions in the immigration rules contained in any statute?

Mr. Brittan: The immigration rules have the force of law. They are delegated legislation.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that the police regulations also have the force of law? We are talking about what is in the statute.

Mr. Brittan: The position is absolutely clear. The police regulations have the force of law. The provision that has been passed in another place introduces into statute a requirement that certain matters should be covered by police regulations. Those regulations will have to be promulgated. The provision is a skeleton provision, and no more than that. It must be seen in that context.
I am seeking to deal with the suggestion that there is something unique in including in a provision that has the force of law a requirement that there should not be discrimination on grounds of race. I have quoted the immigration rules as an example. In addition, there has been general legislation making it unlawful to discriminate on racial grounds in employment and housing and in the provision of a variety of services, including education and transport. That legislation bites directly on a large number of public servants in both central and local government. If they act contrary to that legislation, they will be subject to the appropriate disciplinary procedures.
For the purpose of arguing the merits or otherwise of that legislation, it is not possible to say that the police, by

being mentioned expressly rather than covered by other disciplinary provisions, are being singled out in a unique manner.

Mr. Budgen: My right hon. and learned Friend deals with this mainly from the point of view of the police. Does he agree that from the point of view of the coloured community——

Mr. Robin Corbett: What colour?

Mr. Budgen: The black community—this confers upon them an additional advantage which is not enjoyed by white people?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that for one moment. If the police were to discriminate against people on other grounds, or were rude to them, they would be guilty of a disciplinary offence. For that reason—my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw takes the same view —I have said that it was unnecessary to have such a provision. If that is so, all that this provision is doing is spelling out in a particular respect a ground for complaint which would be just as available to all other people who had been handled by the police in an objectionable way who could complain under the other disciplinary heads that I have mentioned.
I agree that, because it makes no difference, there was no necessity for such an amendment to be introduced. There is a difference in saying that the provision duplicates what already exists and saying that it imposes an extra hazard. Nothing that anyone has said can suggest that. To suggest that it imposes an extra hazard in contrary to the case that has been put forward on behalf of the police throughout the three years during which this debate has been conducted. In the board to which I have referred, the argument was not put that the police discriminate, or that they ought to discriminate, or if they discriminated it was anything other than objectionable and something against which complaint should be made.
The sole ground and argument put forward was that it was perfectly possible to complain against such discrimination and that, there fore, no change was needed. That was an argument that I accepted. It is inconsistent with that argument to say now that a specific provision of racially discriminatory behaviour adds to the burdens and impositions on the police. If one is seeking to give examples of other examples where there is specific reference to racial discrimination, one need mention not just immigration officers and the general provisions of the law which make racial discrimination unlawful and which apply to many public servants, but, in the private sector, the fact that the Bar Council is to consider a recommendation by the Senate of the Inns of Court to the effect that it should be an offence of professional misconduct for a barrister to cause or permit racial discrimination. It is expected that that recommendation will be accepted.
I bring forward all these points to make it clear, not just, as is the first limb of my argument, that the police service is not disadvantaged by this amendment, unnecessary though it be, but that it is in no sense a slur on them by singling them out or suggesting that they are uniquely or particularly prone to engage in racially discriminatory practices. I pay tribute to the genuine efforts that the police have made to improve race relations in recent years and


to the fact that, if there has been an improvment in the Brixton area, it is in large part due to the efforts of the police.

If the amendment: were left in the Bill—this is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made—it would still be necessary to define in regulations what constitutes the offence of racially discriminatory behaviour. That will be done — I lay great stress on this—in the closest consultations with those who represent the police on the police advisory board. I attach the greatest importance to that.
I am happy to take this opportunity to assure the House that I will take the consultations seriously and make every effort to reach agreement on the regulations which would be practicable and fair to the police. I very much hope that it will be possible to reach that agreement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers the regulations, will he be sure to provide that racist language and abuse fall within the scope of conduct prohibited by the regulations?

Mr. Brittan: In the absence of consultations, it would be unwise of me to jump the gun and say what will or will not be in the regulations. If any of my hon. Friends have views on the matter, they can be taken into account.

Dr. Alan Glyn: When my right hon. and learned Friend brings forward the regulations, having had all the consultations that he has described, must they have the approval of the House and can they be amended?

Mr. Brittan: They will be subject to the negative procedure and can be prayed against.
At no stage during the lengthy debates on the Bill have the Government been prepared unacceptably to fetter police powers and discretion, nor to prejudice police interests. My hon. Friends will be aware of the enormous efforts that have been made within the House and outside it to force us to do just that. We have resolutely resisted any such attempts for two years now. That is true at this stage also.
In the past week, the Government have stated their view clearly on two other matters of much greater practical significance to the police than the amendment under discussion. We have successfully urged the House to reject amendments that would have prevented plain clothes officers from exercising powers to stop and search. That is a matter of practical importance which, if it had been allowed to stand, would have seriously impeded the police in carrying out their duties.
Today we have resisted an amendment on the exclusion of evidence proposed by Lord Scarman and passed into the Bill as a result of his efforts. We have won the vote on that issue. Both matters would have severely limited police effectiveness. Considering the Bill as a whole, I believe that no great issue of principle is at stake. Those who have argued against the amendment have done so not on the ground of principle but because they believe it to be unnecessary. We have a two-Chamber system of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. The other place has passed two other amendments which we believe have serious implications for the policing of this country and we have not hesitated to oppose them. We do not believe that

it would be right to reject this amendment on racially discriminatory behaviour. I therefore advise the House to agree to it.

Ms. Clare Short: On behalf of the Official Opposition, I give firm and unequivocal support to the amendment moved by Lord Scarman and passed in the other place which will make racially discriminatory behaviour a specific disciplinary offence in the police force. I do so after a defensive and, if I may say so, a mealy-mouthed speech by the Home Secretary, who seemed to be inciting his Back Benchers to vote as they wish. He was saying to the House that the Government do not support the amendment but believe that it should stay because it was passed in the other place. He then went on to cite two other instances where the Government invited us to vote against amendments passed in the other place. In code, what the Home Secretary was saying to his Back Benchers was, "Carry on chaps, you can vote against this. We do not care about it. It is not important." That is not the view of the Official Opposition. We consider the amendment to be important.
We also understand that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the paid representative of the Police Federation, is to lead a much-publicised revolt. There has been an early-day motion signed by at least 16 Conservative Members who intend to oppose the amendment.
I say to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the Police Federation, "If you are against racially discriminatory behaviour in the police force, you have no reason to oppose this amendment. What you are doing in your opposition is saying something very different to the police force. You are saying, 'Carry on chaps, it is OK the way that you are behaving now ''' They are saying that in the face of two important pieces of evidence. One is what the members of our black communities tell us about police behaviour and the normal language used by the police to them. The other is the findings of an extremely important report commissioned by the Metropolitan police and paid for in part by the Metropolitan police studying in detail policing behaviour, especially their language in matters of race and their behaviour towards black people.
8 pm
I speak as one who has lived for a long time in the area which I represent. I have many black friends, and I have known over many years that the police do not behave in the way that is often suggested in the House. They are not little angels who always obey every rule and regulation. I read the evidence in the report of the Policy Studies Institute, and I was shocked by the extent and the crudity of the attitudes in the Metropolitan police towards our racial minorities. Anyone who is familiar with the report and who is willing to continue to vote against this amendment is telling the police that they can continue to behave in this disgraceful way.
In view of the strong feeling that this issue seems to have aroused, I shall put before the House some of the evidence contained in the PSI report, and I hope that it will be taken seriously. Those hon. Members who have not bothered to read the report should be made aware of its findings.
It is right to make it clear that the study was conducted on the Metropolitan police and that there has been no similar study of any other police force. However, it would be wrong to suggest that this problem exists only in the


area of the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan police commissioner is to be congratulated on his courage in commissioning this report, allowing it to be published and allowing us to take its results seriously.
The researchers tell us that the use of racist language is universal in the Metropolitan police, especially within areas with sizeable ethnic minority populations. They give examples of the language that is used. It is crude, and I apologise to the House for reporting it, but it is the language that our police use constantly when talking about black people living in Britain. They describe them as "niggers", "satchies", "sootier", "coons", "spades", "monkeys", and "spooks". These words are used to refer on any normal day-to-day occasion to any black person, be he one giving evidence on behalf of the police or one against whom an offence has been alleged.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Lady help us by also describing some of the language used by the people mentioned against members of the police force?

Ms. Short: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make such a point. The police are employed by the public to apply our law equally and without fear or favour to every citizen. The fact that individual black people may on occasions use rude words about the police is not equivalent. To suggest that it is shows a shocking state of mind. It implies that the police should be permitted to behave as badly as any individual black person might behave on one occasion.
These words are used of people of west Indian Afro-Caribbean origin, and not of Asians. We are told that the general term to describe Asians is "Pakis". I stress that these words are used constantly and are not unusual.
We are told that one of the authors of the report, when talking to a woman detective constable, was told that when she joined the force she used to wince when people used such words as "coon", "wog", and "nigger". She had pledged to herself that she would never use such terms. She pointed out that the habitual use of such words was part of police jargon and was uniform throughout the force. She admitted that she herself now said "spade" and "spook" constantly, though she could not explain why.
The researchers go on to tell us that in a police station in London in an area with a large ethnic minority population there is a toilet used only by members of the force. It has racist slogans all over it. They give us two in particular:
Fight racism. Smash a nigger in the gob today.
The second is:
What is the difference between a nigger and a bucket of shit?
The answer is,
The bucket.
It is shocking and it is crude, but the House must face it. The researchers tell us that language of that kind is normal. These are not exceptional incidents which they encountered only once.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Was not the survey conducted several years ago? Many of its conclusions were accepted by the Metropolitan commissioner, and he has instituted measures which have dealt with many of them effectively. The hon. Lady says that this is what is going on today. That is not true.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman is right that the research was commissioned some time ago and published

only recently. I agree that the commissioner says that he has taken the report seriously and that all sorts of measures have been adopted to try to tackle the problem, including a change in the training of Metropolitan police officers in an attempt to increase their racial awareness.
I do not know what the judgment of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is, but my serious judgment is that a problem as deeply and as badly entrenched as this is unlikely to be eliminated overnight by a change in training procedures. I think that it is extremely likely that the problem persists. We also have the problem in other police areas where we have not been lucky enough to see such honest research commissioned.
The researchers also tell us that in conversations that they conducted over a long period alongside members of the Metropolitan police, hostile comments about black people were occasionally related to a race theory and to neo-Facist politics. They tell of an incident where, talking with a couple of policemen, one of whom made a racist remark, one researcher asked him why. He replied:
Because they're all thieving, toe-ragging little niggers—the ones we deal with.
The second officer said:
I think it's because they've only just come over here and it's bred into them.
The researcher asked what he meant by that. The answer was:
Well, they're used to running round in the jungle, plucking what they want from the trees and off the floor and killing someone for it if necessary. When they get here it's all different. They just don't know how to behave.
I cite a further example. The researchers identified a woman constable as being someone who did not have strong racist views and who was unhappy that these attitudes were widespread in the Metropolitan police. She said:
I know that PCs call them 'spooks', 'niggers' and 'sooties', but deep down the majority of PCs aren't really against them although there are some who really hate them and will go out of their way to get them. I call them `niggers' myself now but I don't really mean it.'
Hon. Members may remember that following the Deptford fire there was a march which ended in some kind of disorder. The researchers refer to a time when the police were discussing this march. They tell us that because there had been that incident there was a heightening of these very crude racist comments. Someone was describing the march as "hundreds of rampaging niggers", and he suggested that it had been a defeat for the police, though, he went on:
I managed to hit a nigger in the mouth—
holding out his hand to show a small mark.
This is where the nigger's teeth went in.
Someone else commented:
I hope you've had your tetanus jab",
to general laughter. The discussion ended with the officers agreeing that they were animals and should be shot.
The police refer to all Asians as "Pakis" from whichever country they may come. The researchers tell us that police racism towards Asians is rather different. Instead of the kind of abuse that I have described so far, the police constantly say about members of our community who originate from the Indian sub-continent that
Pakis are devious, sly or unreliable. In particular they never tell the truth. Asians are incapable of telling the truth if it is to their advantage that they lie.
There are more examples, but the general racism about people of Afro-Caribbean origin is cruder and more


frequent although when it comes to people of Asian origin it is this type of remark about them being sly, liars and people who never tell the truth that is general.
The report goes on to consider whether those attitudes affect police behaviour. I believe that most decent human beings would think that such attitudes cannot but affect police behaviour. The report, the tone of which is carefully considered, and which is carefully written, states that given those attitudes and the fact that such talk is universal in police stations—we have been told that several police constables who did not like it found themselves engaging in such talk in the end in order to become part of the group — it is surprising how well, on most occasions, the police behave and manage not to use such language when they deal with black people in face-to-face encounters. However, the researchers refer to a series of incidents in which they think that those racist attitudes led to bad policing.
The first example is of an experienced police constable who was thought to be effective. He was invited to give a talk to probationers on how to deal with stop and search. He was talking with several other police constables about what he would say. He decided that he would say:
How does an experienced policeman decide who to stop? Well, the one that you stop is often wearing a wooly hat, he is dark in complexion, he has thick lips and he usually has dark fuzzy hair.
The second example where the researchers thought that it was clear that police racist attitudes were leading to bad policing was of a young black person who had been knocked over on his bicycle. No one alleged that the young black person had done anything wrong. The policeman who attended the incident, when describing it to the researchers, said that there was a young black lad on a bike and that he presumed that it was stolen. In fact, there was no evidence that the bicycle was stolen. That shows the person's frame of mind, in that he thought that a black person must always be doing something wrong and committing an offence. Later it was shown that that was not so.
I shall give another example of police inefficiency arising from widespread racist attitudes. A call came through on the radio about two youths who had stolen some money from a milk float. Two police in a car went rushing round to try to find two black youths but could not find them. When they radioed back to check, they were told that no one had suggested that the two youths involved were black. That was an assumption in the minds of the police officers. They had rushed round inefficiently and failed to catch the two youths involved because they assumed, due to the general atmosphere of racism, that anyone who committed an offence in that area must be black.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the hon. Lady agree that she is talking about a small minority of situations and that what we are being subjected to is a typical Opposition attack upon the police, whom they see as the lackeys of the capitalist system and therefore legitimate targets for attack?

Ms. Short: In a matter as serious as this to the health of our society, such a comment is beneath contempt. I am referring to a report paid for and commissioned by the Metropolitan police, which was published at the beginning

of the Committee on the Bill. It was embargoed until 18 November 1983. Conservative Members assume that because the report was published a year ago, such attitudes have gone. I am not trying to suggest to anyone in the House that every single policeman or policewoman employed in this country has such attitudes. I told the House at the beginning of my speech that I knew that there was an unfortunate degree of racism in the police force, but I was shocked by the report. I am shocked and I believe that all hon. Members should be.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that even if it is a minority in the Metropolitan police — it may be — one should be horrified and sickened at such a display of racism by those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order? Would it not be better if Conservative members recognised that this is a serious problem? It may or may not be dealt with effectively by the amendment, but that is a subject for debate later. Surely it would be more appropriate if we took note of what was shown in the report commissioned by the Metropolitan police and showed our condemnation of the fact that such sentiments—even if it is only from a few—are coming from members of the police force. In itself, that is serious enough.

Ms. Short: Of course, I agree with that. Conservative Members obviously took an antagonistic view towards the amendment before they came to the Chamber and heard of the research. I am surprised that they are not taking it more seriously, are not more quietened and shocked by it, and are not reconsidering their previous view.
I shall give a couple of other examples to which the report refers. I am simply drawing the report to the attention of the House because it must be taken into account by anyone who votes on the amendment.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does not the hon. Lady remember saying a moment ago that, in her opinion, there was widespread racism in the police force? If that is the view of the official Opposition, she should say so or she should retract it immediately.

Ms. Short: I do not see why I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, as he said nothing new. I have been trying to say and I repeat that this report, commissioned by the Metropolitan police, finds that crude racist attitudes are widespread and that there is universal use of crude racist language in the Metropolitan police, particularly in areas——

Mr. Rob Hayward: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: I shall not give way. The point is clear. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can listen and understand.
There are further examples of bad policing arising from racist attitudes. An Asian boy complained of being assaulted in school. There was a very long delay in investigating the assault. Policemen made remarks about how difficult it was to deal with the Asian community and how much trouble they had taking evidence from that community. There is another example of a Nigerian family who had bottles thrown through their window on several occasions. The researchers thought that the policing was


not adequate because of the attitude of the policemen who dealt with the incident. Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "At last."] You do not want to hear the truth, do you?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am always prepared to listen to the truth.

Ms. Short: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that that quality is shared by all hon. Members.
The very serious incident of the Deptford fire caused enormous conflict and tension in the Metropolitan police. Many members of the black community were convinced that the fire was caused by a racist attack and that the police did not take that line of inquiry seriously. The researchers' view is that, because of the attitudes and tensions in the Metropolitan police, the police made mistakes in how they dealt with that allegation by the black community. Following the fire, the mother of some of the children who died, and in whose house the fire took place, received several racist letters saying things such as, "We are glad they fried. It's just what we wanted."

Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: I shall not, because none of the interventions made by Conservative Members has been serious or helpful.

Mr. Butterfill: rose——

Mr. Hayward: rose——

Ms. Short: I am trying briefly to summarise the research. My summary would be briefer if all these unhelpful interventions ceased.
It is the serious view of the researchers that the police were defensive on all public occasions and never gave credence to the serious possibility to which I referred. Therefore, they antagonised the black community in London more and enlarged their fears that a racist attack was the cause of the fire and their belief that the police did not take that problem seriously—[Interruption.] I am referring yet again to the report and its findings.
The report goes on to talk about black members of the police force, how they are treated and whether their experience of being members of the police force is affected by racist attitudes. The researchers refer to two such members of the police force who talked at length about how difficult they found it to work in the Metropolitan police because of the widespread use of racist terms in conversation, over the radio and in all policing events. One was an Asian— tall, a good sportsman, with very little accent, extremely bright and articulate. He was not religious, he ate hamburgers and chips, and so on. Yet he found his training intolerably difficult because of the racist attitude of his trainer and he nearly resigned from the force. At the end of the training, however, the trainer explained that he had given him a hard time because he knew that he would have a hard time later.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: No, I will not give way.
The second officer to whom the researcher spoke referred to similar experiences.
The hon. Member for Orpington says that the Metropolitan police have taken the report seriously—more seriously, apparently than most Conservative

Members have taken it—and that they are taking steps to try to change racist attitudes and the regular use of shocking and crudely racist language. We do not know, however, whether such behaviour has actually been eliminated. I do not believe that a bit of training could eliminate such widespread behaviour and the attitudes that go with it. Moreover, we know nothing about the situatton in police forces in other areas with large ethnic minorities.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: No. In view of all that evidence, I must ask the Police Federation, through the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, whether it has read the report and if so whether it does not regard this as a serious problem that must be tackled by at least making racially discriminatory behaviour a disciplinary offence. If it has read the report and is unwilling to take such action, it is all the more shocking that, having seen the magnitude of the problem, it is unwilling to support a measure which would at least make a start on correcting it.
It is also constantly argued that one should not pick on the police, because such attitudes may exist elsewhere. If such attitudes exist elsewhere in the public service we should seek to deal with them. We should seek to deal with this problem everywhere. Nevertheless, there is a special problem in relation to the police because special powers are given to them by Parliament—the power to arrest people, to deprive them of their liberty, to question them and to give evidence in court against them. The system relies on our being able to assume that the police normally tell the truth and are objective in their evidence. If any of the evidence that I have cited is correct, we cannot be sure that the police are behaving objectively and fairly towards the black community, and we should be queuing up not just to support the amendment but to demand that steps be taken in every force throughout the land to ensure that a rule is not just implemented but taken seriously and every possible effort is made to eradicate the problem.
I put it very seriously to the House and especially to those hon. Members who may not previously have been aware of the seriousness of the problem that not to support the amendment is to say in code to the police that we are not bothered that the situation is so serious. [Interruption.] There seems to be an extraordinary amount of interest in resisting the amendment. There are more hon. Members here now than for any previous debate and their purpose is entirely negative — to resist an amendment which merely seeks to make racially discriminatory behaviour a specific disciplinary offence. No policeman or policewoman need fear it. Policemen and policewomen are referred to in the report as saying that the situation is disgraceful, that senior officers are doing nothing about it, that they are ashamed of the force for which they work and that it is time that something was done.

Sir Bernard Braine: The only reference that I shall permit myself to make to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is that she is quite wrong to assume that opposition to the amendment on this side of the House, which I believe is growing every minute, stems from indifference to racism. Speaking for myself—no doubt others will add their voices later— I have spent 50 years of active work in politics which began in campaigning on behalf of Jews in this country against Mosley's Fascists in the 1930s. I abhor racialism in all forms, and so do my hon. Friends.
I confess that I intervene with a heavy heart. I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as well he knows, but on this occasion I found his argument utterly unconvincing.
I should explain that I have an interest in this matter as for 19 years I have acted as parliamentary adviser to the senior police officers of this country—the commanders in the field—the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales. I must tell the House that senior police officers take exactly the same view as the Police Federation—that it is politically wrong, socially unjust and very shortsighted to single out police officers, and no other persons with statutory authority, and to make racially discriminatory behaviour, which we all deplore, a specific disciplinary offence for them.
I do not often speak in the House on police matters. If I do so now, it is because of the deep concern, if not anger, of senior police officers at the slur that would be cast on their profession if the amendment becomes law. The first point I wish to make is that the Lords amendment is entirely unnecessary. We are being driven to the barricades in a totally unnecessary exercise because—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for Ladywood — under the police disciplinary regulations racial discrimination is already a punishable offence. Like all other citizens, the police are bound by the Race Relations Act, and if they fail to apply it or to observe it themselves they can, in a serious case, be charged with a criminal offence. They can also be dealt with under the complaints procedure, which is strengthened by the Bill—we must relate our comments to the Bill as a whole—and can be punished under their own discipline code.
Every new entrant to the police service has to take the following oath when he takes on the office of constable:
I solemnly swear that I will well and truly serve … without favour or affection, malice or ill will.
He is a citizen armed by the community to protect us all. He joins the relatively thin blue line protecting us now, and is undergoing exceptional strain. Lord Scarman himself, in his historic report on the Brixton disorders, stated in relation to the police:
I am satisfied that when racially prejudiced behaviour is found it is stamped on by severe disciplinary action.
That was in 1981, not 1984. That report served a good purpose. The whole nation and the House are indebted to Lord Scarman because he caused us all to think seriously about the police and their relations with the public and particularly with our black fellow citizens. However, Lord Scarman is now creating a new offence and he persuaded a majority in the other place to support him. Perhaps Ministers will explain how that majority was arrived at; I understand that there were some ministerial absentees.
8.30 pm
The odd thing—my right hon. and learned Friend made no reference to this—is that until a few days ago Ministers were quite clear about the matter. The former Minister of State, speaking on behalf of the Home Secretary in Standing Committee, gave his opinion last March as follows:
I do not believe that the best way of dealing with that anxiety is to create a new disciplinary offence of racially prejudiced policing … the disciplinary code is wide and flexible enough to deal with such misconduct." — [Official Report, Standing Committee E; 22 March 1984, c. 1925.]

Other Ministers have said much the same. Speaking on this amendment as recently as 19 October, Lord Elton said that he did not think that the amendment was the right way to write out statutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was a member of the Standing Committee, and he can tell us in detail what was said at that stage.
What has happened since 19 October to change the Government's view? What soul-searing experience has the nation been through? What dramatic breakdown in the relatinship between the police and the public has taken place in the past few days has deprived of any meaning the words of the Minister of State in another place?
I do not believe that there is any necessity for the amendment. If there is, upon what principle is it based? I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend to ascertain the principle on which this dramatic change is being recommended, but there is no principle. The only principle in this matter is that there shall be no principles. Nothing that my right hon. and learned Friend has said today has demonstrated otherwise. We have witnessed the unedifying spectacle of the Home Secretary standing on his head and calling upon his colleagues to vote for an amendment when everything that was said by Ministers in Committee showed that there was no justification for such an innovation.
Where, pray, in the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, which provided the foundation for the Bill, is such an idea recommended? I argue that to discriminate, as the amendment does, or to make a difference between or distinction against any class or minority is contrary to all previous applications of the English law. That law prides itself on its fairness and the oft stated assertion that all men are equal in its eyes.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman asks why there should be a separate law or code. What he is saying reminds one of the arguments used initially against the Race Relations Act—an Act which I am sure many hon. Gentlemen oppose to this day. The argument then was that the only effective way to combat racism was to introduce the legislation of the 1960s, which proved quite effective. The same argument holds good in this instance.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that one should discriminate against the police and no one else. He should permit me to develop my argument. If he listens to it, he may understand the situation more clearly by the time he makes his own speech.
The amendment violates the principle of equality in the eyes of the law, and it violates it twice. First, we would segregate the black community from the rest of our citizens, by a sort of legal apartheid, dealing with it differently from the white population.
Secondly, we would be discriminating against the police officer in isolation by selecting him to be subject to possible disciplinary action for racially discriminatory behaviour. No police officer in the land condones such behaviour. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will readily testify to that. The disciplinary code already allows for such behaviour to be dealt with adequately. Such behaviour is an offence, and it is dealt with immediately it is identified.
Let us suppose that an immigrant is stopped at Heathrow airport and questioned by a customs officer, an


immigration officer and a police officer. The police officer might be a member of the Special Branch looking for terrorists and drug pedlars. All three officers are there to safeguard the public; all three are subject to the Race Relations Act which applies to us all. However, if the immigrant later alleged that he had been discriminated against on grounds of race by all three, it would be only the police officer——

Mr. Brittan: rose——

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. and learned Friend must let me finish my sentence. Only the police officer could be accused of a specific new offence.
I fully accept that in 1981 Lord Scarman found serious problems in Brixton and Toxteth. However, he has acknowledged the improvement in relations between the police and the black community since then and the part played in that by the police service. There have been considerable strides in recent years in the selection procedures and in training in attitudes and human awareness to ensure that there is no racially discriminatory behaviour in the service. A race relations centre has been established at Brunel university, and there is racism-awareness training.
The senior police officers whom I represent are adamant that there is no evidence whatsoever for the measure that my right hon. and learned Friend urges that we should pass tonight. There is no loophole which needs to be plugged. The amendment is merely a public relations exercise. It was advocated by Lord Scarman on the ground that no other single step would be more effective in building confidence among black people in their attitude towards the police. I disagree. The best step to take— the right step to take— is to treat all our citizens in the same way, without fear or favour and without discrimination, including not only black people, but police officers.
The Police Federation is receiving resolutions on this matter, particularly from areas where the police are facing difficulties on the miners picket lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has received such a message, from the joint branch boards of Nottinghamshire, South Wales, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the Metropolitan police condemning the amendment which they describe as
a pious clause to make racist behaviour or conduct an offence under the police discipline code, when any offensive conduct directed towards a member of the public is already covered by police regulations … This singling out of the police is a gratuitous insult to the service.
That is what the men in the front line say. The House is being asked for purely cosmetic and tactical reasons to agree to an amendment which was considered by Ministers only a few days ago to be unnecessary.
It is wrong that an unjustifiable, unfair and unnecessary law should be made, merely to ease the Bill's passage through Parliament. That is the real reason why we are being asked to abandon principle and support the Government. If this is bad law—and it is—we must act correctly and reject the Lords amendment. We must restore the balance that the Royal Commission tried to establish between the rights of the individual and police powers. Hitherto the Government have said that that balance is inherent and enshrined in the Bill, which now, at the last moment, they want to turn upside down. I urge my colleagues to reject their advice.

Mr. James Wallace: I doubt whether I shall be able to summon the same passion as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). Although I disagree with some of what he said, I do not wish to cast doubt on his statement that he has fought racism throughout his political career.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will support the Government. We should have preferred the Home Secretary to have moved that we accept the Lords amendment on grounds of principle rather than on grounds of pragmatism. Nevertheless, we welcome the Government's stand. The earth-shattering event of 19 October was the Government's defeat in another place and the incorporation of the amendment. We are glad that the Government accept that it would be retrograde to remove it.
As the Home Secretary said, the amendment's history goes back to Lord Scarman's recommendation in his report on the Brixton riots. His report was widely acclaimed and his hard work was recognised. He achieved a deep understanding of the problems that prevailed there. It is unhelpful to speculate on the amount of racism that pervades the police force. It would be naive to think that it does not exist. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) gave examples of things which, even if they apply to only a small minority of the police force, should worry the House.
Lord Scarman dismissed the allegation that the police were an oppressive arm of a racialist state but said in paragraph 4.63:
Such plausibility as this attack has achieved is due, sadly, to the ill-considered, immature and racially prejudiced actions of some officers in their dealings on the streets with young black people. Racial prejudice does manifest itself occasionally in die behaviour of a few officers on the streets. It may be only too easy for some officers, faced with what they must see as the inexorably rising tide of street crime, to lapse into an unthinking assumption that all young black people are potential criminals.
Against that background, Lord Scarman moved the amendment in another place, which accepted it. He also said in another place that the police have done much to improve matters in Brixton. The purpose of this amendment is to reinforce those steps. It is important that relations between the police and the community, especially in areas with a large black population, should be improved. The amendment will do much to achieve that.
8.45 pm
One of the objections to the amendment is that it makes more specific a complaint that is already dealt with by the police disciplinary code. That has never been a barrier lo being more specific about a problem. When the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 was going through Parliament, vandalism was covered already by the common law offence of malicious mischief. Nevertheless, because of a particular problem that worried the House, it was thought right to identify the problem and recognise the crime of vandalism. Also, paragraph 9(3) of the disciplinary regulations says:
Proceedings for the offence of discreditable conduct should be brought sparingly. Wherever possible a more specific charge under one of the other paragraphs of the disciplinary code should be laid. A charge of discreditable conduct should not be added to a charge under another paragraph that is based on facts distinct from those underlying that other charge.


The amendment achieves a more specific charge. If a justifiable complaint is made, the more specific charge of racially discriminating behaviour will be available. That is an improvement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman support regulations saying that the police should not discriminate on political grounds, sex grounds, or, for example, against homosexuals? Would he support such specific amendments as well?

Mr. Wallace: If there were growing anxiety about an issue and such provision would improve relations between the police and the public, so be it. Most worry now centres on the police discriminating on grounds of race.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asked why one section of the community should appear to be gaining an advantage. Lord Elton used that argument when opposing the amendment on behalf of the Government. It is an absurd argument. The amendment confers no advantage. It is directed at protecting people who, because of their colour, have suffered disadvantage and have been on the receiving end of treatment that has given them cause to complain to the police.
Racism is an evil which, regrettably, probably exists in the police force, as Lord Scarman said in his report. At paragraph 4·64 of that report he said that even the smallest display of racial prejudice can have great consequences and build up resentment and hatred. Anything that the House can do to reduce such hatred and to promote better relations between the police and the community is welcome. With that in mind, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the Government.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I assure the House that my contribution will be brief. I shall support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the Lobby tonight. I hope that many of my hon. Friends will think carefully before deciding to vote against this proposal.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the amendment may not be necessary. Racial discrimination may already be able to be dealt with under existing police disciplinary codes. To say that something is unnecessary is not to say that it is objectionable. I find it difficult to accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) suggested. He said that acceptance of the amendment—that an emphatic statement about racial discrimination was in itself a breach of disciplinary duty by a police officer—is insulting to the police force. It is not.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said. Any hon. Member who knows of his record will be aware that he has fought against racial intolerance all his life, and all hon. Members admire him for taking that view. He would agree that racial discrimination of any kind is abhorrent, and that it cannot be accepted or tolerated in the police force.
However, we must face certain realistic facts. There is racial prejudice. It is tragic that it still exists. Rightly or wrongly, there is perceived to be a degree of distrust between many in the coloured community and the police. We must face both the reality and people's perception of these matters. Acceptance of the amendment cannot do any harm to the police or upset the present position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point asked what change there has been since 19 October. One single fact has changed—that the Government were defeated in another place. As a Minister I became aware of how a defeat in the other place can change a Government's attitude. I did not think that I was wrong about school transport, but I had to accept the reality of what happened in the other place and advise the House to accept it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is perfectly entitled to take the same view with this Bill.
It worries me that if we are seen to reject this recommendation, people may ask what we have to hide, and why we are not prepared to say that racial discrimination is abhorrent in all its forms and is a disciplinary offence in itself. If the amendment is rejected, I fear that the wrong message may go out from the House. Although I recognise that Ministers have in the past said that the amendment is unnecessary, my right hon. and learned Friend is right to recommend it to the House now. I hope that hon. Members will accept it.

Mr. Max Madden: I support the amendment, which seeks to make racially discriminatory behaviour a specific disciplinary offence, for which members of police forces found to have committed such offences should be punished by
dismissal, requirement to resign, reduction in rank, reduction in rate of pay, fine, reprimand or caution.
I agree with right hon. and hon. Members who argue that there is a need for a specific offence to be introduced. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who argued effectively about the perceived ratio of prejudice which many racial minorities see in the police force.
We have heard much about the report of the Policy Study Institute. It does not do the House a service for hon. Members to quibble about the length of time that the survey took or that the picture which it painted is no longer accurate for Britain in 1984. The report stated:
racialist language and racial prejudice were prominent and pervasive. … many individual officers and also whole groups were preoccupied with ethnic differences.
Do hon. Members, especially those who have the honour to represent constituencies with large ethnic and racial minorities, believe that the position described in the report does not exist today and is not accurate for a large proportion of policemen and women?
I take exception to the points raised by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) about the need for a specific charge. Both the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers have opposed the amendment and argue that such conduct is already included in the offence of discreditable conduct. I am advised that, although it may be true in theory, no charge is ever known to have been brought on those grounds. I hear muttering from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the adviser of the Police Federation, who I understand from newspapers is unlikely to represent the Police Federation for much longer. I should be grateful if a more authoritative source than the hon. Gentleman could answer that question. Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether any offence has been brought against a policeman or woman under existing procedures?
There is considerable anxiety among racial minorities about their relationships with the police. That is illustrated


in the increasing numbers of racial attacks and harassment which are committed against many people who are black or Asian.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the present police disciplinary code had been used to punish racial discrimination by police officers.
I am satisfied that when racially prejudiced behaviour is found it is stamped on by severe disciplinary action.
Those are not my words, but those of Lord Scarman in his report.

Mr. Madden: With respect, that does not answer my question, which was whether any charge of racial discrimination has been brought under the existing arrangements against a policeman or woman.
A specific charge will help considerably to rebuild confidence between racial minorities and the police. Hon Members who represent areas where there are large racial minorities know that there is a considerable lack of confidence in the police because of their perceived lack of determination to make inquiries into complaints of racial harassment and attacks, their perceived lack of zeal in apprehending those responsible, and the disappointing rate of convictions against those charged with racial attacks or harassment.
9 pm
Such reports, seen in that way by racial minorities, create the worries that the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South mentioned. There is serious concern, and it is growing. In Bradford, the community relations council recently ceased formal relationships with the police. I shall not mention the details of the immediate cause, but beneath it was a more worrying breakdown in confidence between many ethnic minorities and the police. Unfortunately, the police are perceived to be part of an institution that is enmeshed with a much larger institution —the Government—who are believed to have tightened the screws on immigration and have introduced nationality laws, rules and procedures.
If society wishes to take positive action to build confidence between the police and the ethnic minorities, it must be seen to be taking such action and to be enforcing it against racists of all sorts, whether in the police force or outside it.
The introduction of this specific offence will help, because it will send a message to those ethnic minorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that opposition to this measure would be seen as a code for the police to say that Parliament does not care about such matters. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talked equally effectively about the signal that we can give to the racial minorities and ethnic communities that we care, and that we shall do something about their worries.
How can hon. Members know what it is like to be a black or Asian Briton in 1984? How can any of us know what it is like to be settled in a country, or even a citizen of a country, but to suspect—even to know—that one is not really welcome here? How can any of us know what it is like to be a black or Asian Briton who faces discrimination and prejudice in his daily life? How can any of us here know what it is like to be a black or Asian Briton and to believe that the policemen and women who patrol our streets are not his protectors but agents of a Government who are unwelcoming and uncaring and who repress him and his family?
Of course, I join the hon. Member for Castle Point in abhorring racism and anti-Semitism; all hon. Members would do that. But none of us can know what it is like, because none of us comes from a racial minority which senses that daily threat and looks to the police for impartial protection. We do not sense the fear that those supposed protectors are motivated in many cases by the racial prejudice that ethnic minorities must face in every part of their daily lives.
The House owes it to black and Asian British citizens, who look to the House for fair treatment, to regard them as what they are: citizens of Britain who deserve equal treatment from the law, the police and all sections of society. But how can any of us know what it is like when the DHSS official, the hospital official, the policeman, or the official from every other agency with which one comes into contact asks for one's passport, because that is the only way in which one is recognised as being part of society?
I ask the House to support the amendment, which will send a signal to the ethnic minorities that the House of Commons is deeply worried about racism and racial prejudice in our police force. Of course, we are grateful for the official action that is being taken to eradicate racism and racial prejudice, and we hope that the position will improve; but, if we are honest, we must say here and now that the problem is deeply disturbing. I hope that the House will respond by carrying this amendment.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I intervene only briefly but with strength of feeling. I fear that I cannot support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Much comment in the debate has so far been directed at the position of the police, with which I sympathise, and at the position of the black community which may or may not be discriminated against, with which I also sympathise. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the position of the general public.
For some time, long before this amendment was passed in another place, I have had a growing concern about the position of the public and the protection that it can expect from the police in upholding the law when the police are required to act in a way which is not equal. On many occasions I have boasted of the racial harmony in my constituency, and I do so again, but I have been concerned about the increasing number of constituents who at ray surgery have claimed that they cannot rely on the law being upheld because the police are reluctant to take action when the persons complained about are coloured. I must point out that these constituents are not members of the national Front or racists. I do not know whether these allegations are correct, but I would not be surprised. At present there are three cases about which I am waiting to hear.
Whether or not those allegations are correct, I know that today the police are continually being inhibited and demoralised by instances such as the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), which was merely a catalogue of anecdotes, and selective anecdotes at that. It made no case whatever.
Unfortunately, the pressure group industry is nowadays a form of continuing pinpricks under which the police must operate, yet these extreme pressure groups are no more representative of the wishes or interests of he black community than the animal lib movement is of real animal lovers or the women's lib movement is of the majority of


women. Indeed, one of the deputations which made the complaints to me about the police which I have described was led by a black complainant. Therefore, the responsible black community is not desirous of this amendment either.
Over the ages, the great cry from the black communities throughout the world has been the cry for equality, not least in South Africa, and for equal rights and equality of opportunity. But this amendment is about inequality, favouritism, and unfairness and infers that the majority of the police are racist. Abundantly that is not the case.
I am not misty-eyed about the police force. I believe that some are sometimes unfair and unjust to black people, just as some are sometimes unfair and unjust to white people. Indeed, I have occasionally had the suspicion that they are biased against women drivers.

Mr. Wallace: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the point of the amendment is not whether the police are unfair and unjust to black people or to white people, but that they are unfair and unjust to black people because they are black? There is a vital and crucial difference between that and the point which the right hon. Lady is making.

Mrs. Oppenheim: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true in a minority of cases, that is already covered by existing law. If we want the police force to uphold the law and to continue with a difficult task, which the overwhelming majority of the police force do magnificently, we cannot ask them to do so with one arm tied behind their backs. Yet that would be the result of the amendment.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I cannot promise to be as brief as the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who introduced a fourth argument on behalf of those Conservative Members who are likely to revolt against their Government tonight.
Three arguments have so far been advanced against this amendment. The first is that the amendment is superfluous because the police do not behave in racially discriminatory ways. I should have thought that the extracts quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) from the PSI report on the Metropolitan police would have knocked that argument on the head. The second argument is that the amendment is superfluous because the offence is already caught by existing provisions in the disciplinary code. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) knocked that argument on the head by quoting from paragraph 9(3) of the police disciplinary code, which makes it clear that the general catch-all offence is not to be used except in very rare circumstances.
The third argument has been advanced by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), and will no doubt be advanced by other hon. Members if they can catch Mr. Speaker's eye. That is the argument that this amendment is a slur and an insult to the police. However, if that is so, what is one to think about, for example, a number of the ten commandments? They can be considered as a slur and insult on all human beings. It cannot be said to be a slur or an insult to forbid someone to do something if they have no intention of doing it. The whole basis of our law would be turned upside down if that were so.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the ten commandments apply specifically to policemen?

Mr. Deakins: I was making the point—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman got hold of the wrong end of the stick—that to say that a prohibition in any set of rules for any set of people is a slur on the people that it affects is ridiculous and illogical.
The right hon. Member for Gloucester used a fourth argument when she said that the amendment will mean that the police will be required "to act in a way which is not equal." We are in rather an Alice-in-Wonderland world tonight. If the amendment said that the police must act in a discriminatory way the right hon. Lady's words would be true and just, but the amendment says the reverse, so I do not follow the right hon. Lady's logic.
The argument in which we are engaged tonight is a senssitive one. We have heard about the senitiveness of those speaking on behalf of the police force, what about the sensitivities of the ethnic minorities in many large cities, who are adversely affected by racially discriminatory behaviour by the police with whom they are in contact. Surely racialism by anyone, but particularly by those in authority, compounds the natural disadvantages being suffered by ethnic minorities under our present system, in employment, in housing and, to a certain extent, in education.
The police symbolise authority on our streets, and the House, which is the ultimate authority, should make sure that all in authority, whether they be policemen, teachers, social workers or anybody else, do not treat our ethnic minorities in a racially discriminatory manner when they are acting on behalf of our citizens. We need to eradicate racial prejudice and racial discrimination among all in authority, and this amendment is a small step in that direction.
Everyone in this debate has admitted that racial prejudice exists. I think that it is widespread. The police are human beings, and therefore naturally must be expected to have the same defects as the rest of us, including some hon. Members. The PSI report showed clearly that the police, from time to time, can be racially prejudiced in their views, attitude and conduct. If we are effectively to stamp out racialism in our society today, it has to be fought wherever it rears its ugly head. Therefore, while we have the opportunity, it must be fought within our police force because it is, as has often been said, in the front line.
9.15 pm
I want to draw the attention of the House to one aspect of racially discriminatory behaviour which has not been brought out. My hon. Friends and the Home Secretary referred to racially discriminatory behaviour as a positive act—abusing people, calling them names, discriminating against them by way of treatment, harassing them, and so on. But I draw the attention of the House to another form of racially discriminatory behaviour by the police which adversely affects many of my constituents from ethnic minorities, particularly from Asian communities — the racially discriminatory behaviour of turning a blind eye to complaints of racial attacks and harassment by members of the public and of refusing to believe that there are such things as racially motivated attacks in the streets of our cities. Many of my constituents have suffered


from such behaviour for a number of years, as indeed have the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) with whom I share a borough boundary.
The remedy is not merely to pass the amendment tonight; it is surely better training. I have had the advantage — I recommend those hon. Members who have not been there to go—of having been on a couple of occasions to the Hendon police training centre for the Metropolitan police. I have been impressed recently by the quality of the training which is given there. It used to be called human awareness training, but it may have changed its title now. Hon. Members will know what is involved. Police authorities and lecturers are doing their best in initial training to eradicate racial prejudice and to convince policemen that they must not engage in racially discriminatory behaviour.
Unfortunately, when policemen and policewomen complete their probationary period and become fully qualified with all the responsibility that that entails they fall in with older members of the police force who have not had the advantage of the modern training at Hendon —if hon. Members will forgive the expression—the old lags in the station canteen, who tell them to forget about all the stuff that they learnt at Hendon and that when they get out on the streets it is "us" and "them".
We have heard examples tonight of police who start out with the best intentions, particularly after leaving the Hendon training school, but who gradually lose their faith in no racial discrimination and begin to adopt the standards of those around them. The remedy is not merely in the amendment but to develop in-service training for policemen and policewomen so that they can be constantly reminded that the House does not want to see racial discrimination.
It is important that we make racially discriminatory behaviour a specific disciplinary offence not merely to combat the pressures on the police in certain inner city areas but, much more importantly, so that people from ethnic minorities may have some confidence that they can complain about racially discriminatory behaviour by the police and have it attended to. At the moment, where there is no specific offence many will say that it is not worth complaining because the complaint is caught by a catch-all disciplinary offence which will not produce the desired results. Therefore, the amendment is important to ethnic minorities.
Even such a complaints procedure and a new disciplinary offence will be no substitute for the proper independent complaints procedure that many of us wish to see. The amendment is one step towards improving relationships between the police and the ethnic minority communities in Britian, particularly in our inner city areas. It is a small step and I welcome it, but it must be seen in the context of a Bill which represents in many of its other provisions a big step backwards. For this small relief I give thanks, but I hope that Conservative Members who are thinking about voting against the amendment will think seriously about the full implications of what they are proposing to do.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am conscious that I am supporting an amendment which has caused considerable offence within the police service and is bitterly resisted by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I regret that I am in such a position and that I differ profoundly from the

view expressed by some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braille), for whose experience and judgment I have great respect.
However, the merits of the amendment should attract the support of the House. I wish to put some considerations before hon. Members. I know that not all of those considerations will be welcome to some hon. Members, including some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I hope that they will ponder on them.
The first consideration supports the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). We have to accept that there is some racial prejudice, in conduct and in talk, in the police service. I believe that it is manifested more in talk than in conduct, but sometimes it spills over, and we are blind if we ignore that fact.

Mr. Bill Walker: The important aspect of what my hon. Friend is saying is the communication between individual police officers and the community. It is not unusual for the police and other people to refer to Scotsmen, such as myself, as Jocks. Other people are called Tykes, Scouses and so on.
I have never understood why it is considered wrong to describe a black person as a black when it is normal practice to associate people in a clearly descriptive way with the areas from which they come.

Mr. Hogg: It often depends on how the recipient of the description receives it. My hon. Friend receives the description of himself in good part, but I can well understand that the citizens of Brixton who are black do not like to be called jungle bunnies, coons or niggers.
There is evidence of racial prejudice in the police service and the House must not ignore it. The PSI report, to which the hon. Member for Ladywood drew attention, said in its general conclusion:
we find from our observational research that police officers tend to be hostile to black people in general terms, and certainly indulge in much racialist talk".
The report says that officers often have friendly relations in individual cases, but adds:
Our first impression after being attached to groups of police officers in areas having a substantial ehnic minority population was that racialist language and racial prejudice were prominent and pervasive and that many individual officers and also whole groups were preoccupied with ethnic differences.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech for the merits of the amendment. If he supports the amendment, he must surely say that he deeply regrets the fact that the Tory party has voted against such an amendment in the past.

Mr. Hogg: I will not be trapped by my hon. Friend into making such statements. We are dealing with a specific amendment and we must address ourselves to it. My hon. Friend has been an hon. Member for long enough to know that full well.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I give some evidence from personal experience. For some time I served as a member of the special constabulary attached to the Metropolitan police. I shall not name the police station to which I was attached, because that might be unfair to the officers concerned. I was staggered by the amount of racially derogatory language used about the coloured community. It did spill over into conduct. Certain members of the ethnic community were know as RC3s—meaning race code 3. The practice was that If a car driven by two West Indians was seen going down the


main road from point A to point B a police officer who saw it at point A would tell his colleague at point B over the radio, "There are two RC3s coming down the road. Stop them." That happened frequently.
We must recognise that there is a degree of racial prejudice within the police service. It certainly exists in talk and I believe that it spills over into conduct.
I am deeply concerned at the reaction of the ethnic community to what they perceive to be the police service's attitude. The PSI report is helpful on this matter. The author reports his impressions of what a group, mainly West Indians, have said about their attitude to the police and states in Volume II on page 109:
It would be fair to say that a rigid stereotype of the police force has developed among the group which portrays most police officers as condescending and contemptuous, unhelpful and unco-operative, and hostile or brutal in their actions and attitudes towards the black population in this country.
The report contains much more along that line.
Not only is there a degree of racial prejudice in the police service, but members of the ethnic minorities appreciate that fact and resent the police as a consequence. We consider the amendment against that background.
The police are probably closer to the ethnic minorities than are any other members of an organised institution in our society. It is upon their proper conduct towards the ethnic minorities and upon the recognition by the ethnic minorities that people will act properly towards them that so much of good race relations depends. That is why the House would be right to single out the police service and not to try to catch every other part of the community at the same time.
I do not accept that the existing laws and regulations are sufficient to deal with the mischief. Let us be clear about the Race Relations Act 1976. That Act was largely designed to correct discrimination in a general sense. It was designed to correct discrimination in employment, in places of leisure and in housing. The amendment that we are discussing is designed to correct a mischief that frequently, indeed usually, arises between two people meeting on the street.
The 1976 Act is too cumbersome, too slow, frequently does not catch the conduct of which we are now complaining, and would often be far too serious in its consequences for the individual police officer. Curiously, the same applies to the 1977 police discipline regulations. Two regulations could be used to catch racially offensive behaviour. I refer to regulation 9·3 ad paragraph (8) of schedule 2. But to use them would strain the language in those paragraphs to meet circumstances that they were not designed to meet. I prefer a precise charge to a general charge. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially those who have practised the law, would agree about precise charges being preferable to the general in the law on conspiracy.
I commend the amendment to the House because I believe that if the House accepts it we will emphasise the importance that we attach to good race relations in Britain. It is a significant step towards encouraging the ethnic minorities to appreciate the importance that society attaches to good race relations.

Mr. Maclennan: What a pity that it was not the Home Secretary who made the speech that we heard from the

hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). The hon. Gentleman's force of argument on the merits of the amendment went far beyond that which the Home Secretary felt able to bring himself to deliver. We all recognise the Home Secretary's difficulty in executing a U-turn. It was not possible for him to commend the amendment in principle. He could only say that although the amendment was not necessary, it was not harmful. That has placed a number of Conservative Members in an embarrassing position. They have been persuaded by the Government's argument, used time and again both in this House and in another place, in support of their original position.
The amendment may be unnecessary in the strictly technical terms deployed by the Home Secretary—that under the present police disciplinary regulations it is possible to bring charges against those accused of racist behaviour, and that was admitted by Lord Scarman—but that is not the end of the story. The regulations have existed for some time, but there regrettably remains a pervasive atmosphere of racism which, although not universal and officially condemned by the police force, arouses hostility, lack of co-operation and fear among minority ethnic communities that they will be subject to discimination by the police.
That fact is at least as important as whether it is technically possible to bring charges under the existing disciplinary code. It is important to take seriously the attitude of the police to the amendment and to consider the argument that they have put forward. To some extent, the Home Secretary tried to do that, although he did not find it possible to justify the amendment. The police believe that if the amendment is passed it will be a signal to a number of ethnic minority communities to trump up charges of disciminatory behaviour, which might be both unfair and unreasonable.
I acknowledge that there may be a sharp increase in the number of complaints and that some may be justified and others unjustified. If the police have any confidence in their disciplinary processes, they will distinguish between the false and the true, the justified and the unjustified.
The second complaint of the police, which was voiced by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), is that the amendment will be a slur on them and a gratuitous insult because the provision singles out the police as being different from others who have relations with the public. A number of hon. Members have said that simply to make a provision to deal with a specific problem does not cast aspersions upon the police, either individually or collectively, but recognises that there is widespread concern about the problem.
There is a certain logic in the case that the police put forward, but there are others who come into contact with the public. One thinks of prison officers and some civil servants who may, by an extension of what we have heard today, not least from the hon. Member for Grantham, be subject to the same arguments. There may well be pressure to amend the regulations affecting prison officers, and in logic it would be difficult to resist such pressure.
It would be fair to say to the police that we do not regard them as forming in any sense a separate category but that they are subject to more criticisim than other people who deal with the public. We say that regretfully because there are a number of academic studies—the Metropolitan police study, the PSI study and others—which reinforce each other. They were referred to by the right hon.


Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) as reports of a strident minority of pressure groups, but they are the reports of serious, academic and professional people who have said such things with the full co-operation of the police.
In those circumstances, the House should support the amendment for the simple reason that Lord Scarman gave when moving it in another place when he said that to rely upon existing disciplinary provisions had patently been insufficient to allay the anxieties of those in the ethnic minorities who had felt themselves to be discriminated against in the past — something which clearly is continuing.
I hope that the House will accept the advice of the Home Secretary that the amendment does not change the position and does not damage the police force and that those of his hon. Friends who feel disposed to resent the Government's U-turn will put their resentment behind them and demonstrate that the amendment commands the overwhelming support of the House.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said that the amendment is one step towards improving relations between the police and the ethnic minorities. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that there might be a sharp increase in the number of complaints. I cannot see that that will build up good will on either side. I am completely against the amendment. I shall not attempt to elaborate on or contradict the sheer venom of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who attacked the police from start to finish.
I have always admired my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary —regret that he is not here at present—for the clarity of his argument. I cannot say that tonight. His arguments this evening were convoluted to a degree as he tried to explain why something which was wrong 10 days ago suddenly is right now. We have two Chambers, but it is not always this House which must give way. The other House might also do so, bearing in mind that the Bill has been before this House for nearly two years, and the other place might come to our point of view.
Earlier today my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said during our debate on Lords amendment No. 209 that improprieties should be dealt with by disciplinary means. I suggest that that is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and others of us are asking on Lords amendment No. 273. The existing police disciplinary code already makes racially prejudiced behaviour an offence and, as Lord Elton said in Committee, it is wide enough and flexible enough to deal with such misconduct.
I find it strange that whereas Lord Scarman said in his report in 1981 that he was satisfied that when racially prejudiced behaviour was found among policemen it was
stamped on by severe disciplinary action
he suddenly finds it is necessary to enter this province into our legislation. That being the case, I see no justification for Lords amendment No. 273 which, unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, I believe is a slur on the police and singles them out alone among all Government servants for such an innuendo. I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: It will come as no surprise to right hon. and hon. Members to learn that I support the amendment. It was a great pity that the Home

Secretary should not have introduced his support for it with a degree of enthusiasm worthy of a Home Secretary rather than ushering in his support with a half apology. But I make no apologies for supporting it as strongly as possible, and I do so for a number of important reasons.
My first reason is that relations between the police and the black and Asian communities are vitally important to the conduct of affairs and to the maintenance of tranquility and peace. That was the message of the Brixton riots. It was the message of the Scarman report.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said, how can we expect people to have faith in the police when making complaints if any member of the force is guilty of racial discrimination? I add to that comment. How can a black man or an Asian be expected to join the police—which is what we need—if there is racial discrimination, even if it is practised by only a very small number of police officers?
One of the ways in which we shall solve our problems, especially in such areas as mine, is to have more members of the ethnic minorities members of the police force. One of the features that put them off is the canteen chatter that goes on and the degree of racial discrimination that exists, I hope, among a very small number of policemen, but which is enough to put people off not only making complaints and bringing forward their problems but joining the force.
I move to my second reason for supporting the amendment. I am not a strong believer in endorsements. I do not use a particular tyre because a former Metropolitan commissioner recommends it on television. But if there is one endorsement that I support it is that of Lord Scarman for this amendment to the police disciplinary code. Lord Scarman has moderated the view expressed in his report. In his report on the Brixton riots he recommended that racial discrimination should be a ground for dismissal from the police force. This amendment is a watered-down version of what Lord Scannan suggested in that report.
Lord Scarman had the advantage of seeing what lay behind bad relations between the police in London and elsewhere and the black community, and he had no hesitation in making this recommendation. He has taken a constant interest in such places as Brixton since he wrote his report. He has visited Brixton regularly, not just to do television programmes about it, and has taken an intimate and personal interest in what goes on and the developments which have ensued from his report. Nothing that he has seen since 1981 has lessened his argument for making racial discrimination a disciplinary offence, and he ought to be supported, because no one has more experience of these matters than he.
The argument which is advanced against the amendment is that things were different and that they have changed a great deal since the PSI report. It is suggested that matters have got much better. I know that anecdotal evidence is dangerous, but only recently I overheard a conversation among a number of police officers — I hasten to say not in my own police division. They were talking about "Pakis". They do not seem to understand the difference between someone who adheres to the Islamic faith and another who adheres to the Hindu faith. That seems to be a basic failing. But be that as it may. One of them said, "I have Pakis living next door to me, and sometimes their mail comes to my house by mistake


When it does, I put it straight in the dustbin." There was a titter of laughter and semi-approval from the police officers listening to the conversation.
I overheard that only a few weeks ago. I am afraid that such a remark is not uncommon among, I hope, a minority of police persons. The fact that that is there, and, as the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said, can spill over to professional conduct, is a good enough reason to support the Lords amendment as strongly as possible.
9.45 pm
My final reason for supporting the amendment is that at the end of the day I believe it to be in the interests not just of the ethnic minorities and good relations between the police and the community, but of the police themselves. If there is one person who should support the amendment, it is the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). If only 1 per cent., 0·5 per cent. or 0·001 per cent. of the police force are guilty of racial discrimination during the conduct of their work, that casts a slur and reflects badly on the rest of the police force, which is extremely hard worked and has a great deal to do to try to maintain tranquility and law and order. If there is one person who, as well as Lord Scarman, should argue for the amendment, it is the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He should do so instead of professionally representing the police force — I do not criticise him for that — and opposing the amendment. I argue for and will support as strongly as I can this change in the police disciplinary code, which inures to the benefit of the police and the public alike.

Mr. Spencer: On 26 August I attended the Pakistan day celebrations held in my constituency. The chairman of the Leicestershire Pakistan Association, before several hundred people, chose the person who had done most to help community relations in Leicester in the proceeding 12 months. He chose a policeman—Inspector Beasley from Asfordby police station. I believe that in doing so he put his finger on the pre-eminent position of the police to influence community relations. That position is mirrored by no less a person than the chief constable of Leicester. It is not out of the ordinary to go to a social function maintained by the Asian community in the city and find that the chief guest is a senior policeman. At the Divali celebrations last Friday night, attended by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), in whose constituency the celebrations were held, the chief guest was a divisional superintendent. That underlines yet again the importance of the police in maintaining community relations, and that cannot be stated too often or too loudly.
I regret to say that unfortunately there are many mischief-makers with regard to race. I found that to my cost during the general election campaign in Leicester, South. I would rest more peacefully in my bed tonight if it were a clean sheet upon which we were writing, but we are not. Not only have there been some incidents of racial discrimination in the past, but there are mischief-makers who go out of their way to enhance, inflate and give greater effect to such instances as there have been. We have seen several signal examples of that on the Opposition Benches tonight. One could go through my constituency during the general election campaign and hear from several of my Asian constituents stories of

genuine fear that the British Nationality Act would bring about their removal from this country, where some of them have lived for 18 or 20 years, where they are settled in one house and have one job. It was a cruel exploitation of their position, and people in the Labour party were responsible.
My great fear is that if my hon. Friends, who desire in all sincerity—I accept their sincerity—to free the police from unjustified complaints, succeed in defeating the amendment, a weapon of even greater dimensions will be given to the Opposition, and in the next general election campaign it will be brought down very firmly on our backs.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) argued that all citizens should be treated alike by the police. If that were the situation, there would be no problem and no need for the amendment. Unfortunately, however, there is indeed a problem and many members of the black and Asian communities strongly believe that some policemen are prejudiced against them, for no other reason than the colour of their skin. However much Conservative Members criticise, the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) came from a report into the Metropolitan police commissioned by the force itself. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) gave examples from his personal experience of the type of racial discrimination that continues to exist in the police force.
Some have asked why racial discrimination should be treated separately. As I said when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Castle Point, many of the arguments that we have heard from Conservatives today were used in the 1960s to oppose any form of race relations legislation.

Mr. Budgen: Quite right, too.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is brave and honest enough to concede that to this day he opposes any form of legislation on race discrimination. He frankly admits that, but his hon. Friends who have argued against the amendment are not prepared to be so frank.
If it was right, as I believe it was, to introduce a law against race discrimination all those years ago, it is equally right to make it an offence for the police now. It has been argued that there is already a code of discipline in the police force, but no charge has ever been brought against a policeman for racial discrimination. It is clear, therefore, that in practice the code is not applied and does not work.
I was sickened by the examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. Even if only five or 10 policemen in the entire country came out with those sickening forms of racialism, that should be enough to shock us and to make us consider why no action was taken against such offenders.
Personally, I believe that racially motivated members of the police force are a minority—I hope that I am right—although there are certainly more than five or 10 of them.
My next remark may be criticised as characteristic of an Opposition Member, but I do not believe that many Conservative Members were actually shocked or sickened by the quotations given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. If that is so, it is very unfortunate and it is a reflection on the many Conservative Members who seem to find it difficult to take race discrimination seriously.
I am certainly not arguing that blacks should be treated differently by the police, but it seems that some policemen treat ethnic minorities differently for one reason only—the colour of their skin. I take the view that racialism is a sickness. It should certainly not be tolerated in the police force. If relations between the police and ethnic communities are to improve, it is essential that hostile and prejudiced elements should either leave the force or be subject to disciplinary action on the lines advocated by many of my hon. Friends—as they would be if the amendment were carried.
We want blacks and Asians to have confidence in the police. We want them to be able to feel that, if they take a complaint to a policeman, they will be treated no differently from anyone else. That is what we want, whether in Brixton or anywhere else. Members of ethnic minorities must have confidence that, when they deal with the police, they will not be treated differently simply because they are not white. That is not the case now. If it were, there would, of course, be no need for the amendment.
How far does the House believe that racial discrimination in the police force is a serious matter? That will be determined by the vote tonight. No doubt many Conservative Members will vote against the Government. I wish that they would vote against their Government on other matters which affect a large number of our people. I should like to see a large-scale Conservative rebellion on the cuts in the welfare services and housing benefits. However, only on such a measure as this are we likely to see such a rebellion.
The Opposition have no hesitation in supporting the Government on the amendment. We have always argued against racial discrimination. Indeed, we may have lost votes because we have done so. So be it. It is essential that this sickness should be eliminated from the country and the police force.

Mr. Butterfill: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that we have benefited considerably in the past from amendments tabled in another place which have improved legislation emanating from this House. We have all been delighted to have had the benefit of the wisdom and experience of their Lordships. However, I am afraid that on this occasion we may be disappointed by the contribution of another place.
None of us doubts the sincerity of Lord Scarman or the considerable part that he has played in improving race relations, but the amendment places us in a dilemma similar to that suggested by the phrase, "When did you stop beating your wife?" On the one hand, we have the casing of a slur on the police force. There is no doubt that there is some racialism in the police force—that is a great shame—but the percentage in the police force is only that in the population as a whole. It is even possible —although I hope and pray that it is not the case—that there are some people of racist views in the House.
We must all work to eliminate racism. I have spent all my life opposing it and have founded societies that are dedicated to racial integration. We face a difficult dilemma. If we do not accept the amendment, racial minorities will profoundly misinterpret our decision,—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, of Lords Amendments to the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill, and of the Rent (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill

Question again proposed,  That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Butterfill: Unfortunately, some people will exploit that decision for narrow and crude political advantage. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) used the Deptford fire in support of her argument which was contrary to what many Conservative Members believe. She said it was an example of how the police do not care and do not wish to intervene.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Butterfill: No. The hon. Lady did not give way to me.
The Deptford fire was a good example of how people exploit racial tensions for narrow political advantage. I am sorry that some hon. Members use race relations for narrow political advantage.
With the greatest reluctance, I shall support the Government, holding my nose. I urge my hon. Friends to join me.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The House will recognise that my experience in what I call the struggle for racial harmony in Britain is above the average, although many other right hon. and hon. Members have considerable experience.
In debates on race relations and immigration I have never belittled the front line responsibility of the police force. I have served on the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee for 10 years—longer than any other hon. Member. I have watched the attitudes of both major parties change, and travelled to examine the background of West Indian and Asian people who have settled in Britain. I have also discovered deep prejudice, especially in the British working class. It has been a long struggle to make it understood why people came from those countries. I have always argued that there should be deeper educational activity for the police in London and at Hendon. I have had discussions with police chiefs and Police Federation representatives.
Just as there is in British society as a whole, there will inevitably be in the police force racial prejudice and racist behaviour which will surface during their duties. I can understand why the police chiefs and the Police Federation believe that they are capable of putting their own house in order. I expect that the speeches made on their behalf stem from that belief. However, I suggest that that is not the case. They have too big a task on their hands—the command and the infantry, so to speak—to do that.
I am sure that the House will act sensibly and accept the amendment. It would be a landmark in our development towards and struggle for racial harmony. Throughout the country there are efforts to bring about good ethnic minority-police relations on the streets. I have


never lambasted the police, nor minimised their difficulties. I am sympathetic to the police in the duties and tasks which they must perform.
In my constituency and others such as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) racial groups have grown up together. However, that is not reflected in the police force because it is not yet multi-racial. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is rich in experiences of relationships between the police and black and West Indian people. There is a distinction between them and Asian people. My hon. Friend's constituency has a West Indian settlement and my constituency has an Asian settlement.
I would not speak in the debate without paying warm tribute to the chief superintendents with whom I have dealt throughout my long innings. The attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar has affected the people who make up an Asian community such as that in my constituency. I raise my hat to those police commanders who faced that burden squarely, and invited everyone, including me, for discussion. The superintendents informed me how they sought to fight crime in general and robberies in particular. I do not wish anything that I say to belittle those activities.
Over the years the police have done a lot of growing up. The position has now changed. There is mass unemployment and young people are idle and on the streets. That makes the task of upholding law and keeping the Queen's peace more difficult.
Tonight we face not those general matters but the question whether the House will turn its back on the progression of this development. We cannot legislate for people's feelings. I hope that the House will accept the amendment. Perhaps those hon. Members who are wavering will be moved by my speech. If the House accepts the amendment, it will have a profound effect on the police force for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). It will affect the behaviour and language of rank-and-file policemen. The word that people seemed to be struggling for was the commonplace one of "wog". When I hear people use that word I think that they must be extremely ill-educated, but it is commonplace and one hears it in public and in the police force. If the amendment is passed, the police will have the additional responsibility of minding their language, because their language often determines their thoughts, behaviour, and the way in which they go about their business. The police must look for more balanced attitudes towards people in general.
Sometimes the greatest prejudice is found not in multiracial areas but in areas where the police have not yet discovered that black and brown people are the same as us in their emotions and reactions and in the way in which they go about their daily lives. They are industrious people who are a credit to Britain, especially those in my constituency.
The Bill will affect police education programmes and the way in which recruits to the police force are questioned. However, we must ask whether the step is too drastic. I believe that it is not. If we defeated the Lords amendment, how would other countries regard Britain? It would look as though we did not know that there was prejudice or widespread discrimination in the British police force. We cannot determine the extent of the

discrimination, but we know that it exists. The House would be extremely foolish not to take the step which the Home Secretary has advocated. I am sorry that I did not hear his speech, although I am told that it was not full-blooded advocacy. The House and the other place tend to take an objective attitude in the struggle for racial harmony. This proposal is a step forward in that struggle which can only be for the general good, so let us take it.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: In speaking in favour of the amendment, may I say that I resent any insinuation that I am casting a slur on the police. Far from it. I do not wish to cast aspersions, and I see nothing offensive to the police in the inclusion of this amendment. Indeed, the rejection of the amendment would generate suspicion and anxiety in our coloured communities. That anxiety would be borne out of what they will perceive as the failure of hon. Members to understand their views of the police force.
The views of a white Member of Parliament on the police are very different from those of a black unemployed youth in Brixton. My view is based not only on talking to black people, but on statistics. The recent comprehensive study on young people's attitudes showed that, although 15 per cent. of white people believed that the police were picking on them, 54 per cent. of West Indians believed that the police had that attitude towards them. The PSI survey showed that 64 per cent. of people believed that the police treated West Indians worse than they treated whites. The House must address itself to that reality.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am not sure where my hon. Friend gets his percentages from, but how does he square those with the fact that in virtually every public opinion poll—whoever conducts it—the one group which seems to stand higher than almost any other in the general estimation of the public, and in particular of young people, is not Members of Parliament, social workers or probation officers, but the police?

Mr. Lawler: I do not doubt for a moment that it is not Members of Parliament for whom people have the highest respect, but the feeling among West Indians is that the police seem to pick on them, and it seems that the attitude of the police towards white people is more favourable.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is nonsense.

Mr. Lawler: No hon. Member should have illusions about the police force. I would be the first to cast aspersions, but I do not go along with many of the remarks of some Labour Members. The vast majority of people are law abiding and conduct their affairs diligently. They have nothing to fear. The amendment is aimed at the minority. If it prevents the small number of racial incidents, it will have achieved its object.

Mr. Winterton: It will increase them.

Mr. Lawler: By accepting the amendment we shall leave the coloured community in no doubt about the determination of the police to prevent abuses.

Mr. Winterton: Positive discrimination.

Mr. Lawler: Above all, the police must be free of suspicion of discrimination. They must be above, and be seen to be above, reproach if they are to have the


confidence of the coloured community. Acceptance of the amendment will be a valuable supplement to the sort of work which the police are doing to improve community relations.
I pay tribute to the police in Bradford, who go to great lengths to improve community relations. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) referred to the fact that the Bradford community relations council has broken off relations with the Bradford police force. From my fairly extensive experience of dealing with the ethnic minorities in Bradford, I know that, although the CRC may have broken off relations, members of the ethnic minorities and ethnic minority organisations have not done so. Most importantly, the police force has not broken off its contacts with the ethnic minorities. That was evidenced only last night when one of the distinguished guests at the Diwali celebrations, which I had the honour to attend, was the community inspector. Later, at the Pakistani restaurant that I had the honour to be invited to open, there was the superintendent from the west Yorkshire police.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, to vote against the amendment would in no way lead to an increase in racial discrimination, but it would send a signal to the coloured community, which is not familiar with the police code, that Parliament is blind and insensitive to its anxieties. Unfortunately, there is a sector of the community which is distrustful of the police. That is intolerable. If the amendment changes that situation in any small way, it will be an extremely positive and worthwhile measure.

Mr. Budgen: I suppose that the Labour party is particularly fortunate tonight in that it is united. It has always been united on subjects such as this. It has been united in the belief that declaratory legislation of this sort is effective and ought to be pursued in many situations. It is perhaps not so united in its belief in the effectiveness or otherwise of law in labour relations.
The main interest in this debate has been directed towards the Conservative Benches, for we are deeply divided in our various views about the effectiveness of using the law in declaratory legislation such as the Race Relations Acts or this proposal from the other place.
We have had two vigorous speeches, to which I shall point. One was by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the other was by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), and they put opposing arguments.
Sadly, we have had very little help from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because he based himself on a very narrow point. He seemed to say about the amendment, coming as it does from the other place, "It is the sort of thing that one might expect from some old buffer in the other place, it is not very harmful, not is it necessary or interesting, and it will not have much effect. Let us avert our eyes from this and let it go through without too much talk."
However, this amendment comes with the authority of Lord Scarman, one of the senior Law Lords who, unusually, has taken part in a highly political debate, put forward a highly political view and surely said, by giving his authority to this amendment, that he believes that it is effective, necessary and has real force, and that therefore it should be properly considered. It is an amendment in which Lord Scarman believes, not as a bit of otiose, bad law-making, but as a measure which will confer a real

privilege and advantage on the black minorities and impose a real restraint upon the police, and for that reason the amendment should be seriously considered.
The House should ask itself whether such legislation is effective. We must remember that, when the Race Relations Act was passed in 1968, the House was told that declaratory legislation would change the climate of opinion in this country. We were told that we should soon see a vast reduction in the expression of uncivil racial discrimination and remarks by persons of importance or in authority. The same arguments were put forward about the Race Relations Act 1976.

Mr. Winnick: As someone who took part in those discussions in the 1960s, may I correct the hon. Gentleman? It was not said that such laws, if passed by the House, would change people's attitude. It was said that they would help to eliminate discrimination in employment and housing. Is it not a fact that in many banks, other institutions and stores, whereas previously it was rare to see a non-white face, since the Race Relations Act 1968, and the other Acts that followed were passed, it is commonplace to see black faces in such institutions? To that extent it could be argued that what was said at the time was justified when the Race Relations Act became law.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that legislation was advocated for a number of different reasons. It is true that the 1968 Act was advocated on the basis that it would make specific improvements in specific sectors, but it was also advocated, as was the 1976 Act, on the basis that it would affect the general climate of public opinion, as would the very generous grants which have been given, as it is put by the Government, for ethnic purposes within urban areas.
All that positive discrimination in favour of the black minority is said to have created a favourable climate of opinion, yet we hear that racial discrimination is said by many to be rife among the police at present. Does that not show that 16 years of social engineering has not been as effective as many of those who welcomed it hoped at the time?
Surely the essential argument between my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham is whether it is wise to introduce another measure of discrimination in favour of the black community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that her experience is that the white community believes that in many instances the black community gets a better deal from the police than does the white community. The amendment is likely to increase that suspicion, because, undoubtedly, whenever a criminal is being investigated by the police, he has a tendency to use whatever weapons may be at his command.
As one who has for several years earned his daily bread by appearing on behalf of those who are in difficulty with the police, I can say that everybody knows that more often than not when a chap has been caught in difficult circumstances and makes a confession to the police, he may allege at some later stage that the confession has been improperly obtained. In just the same way, in future black men are likely to say that when they were investigated by the police the police acted in a way which showed racial discrimination.
Some police officers will not be put off at all. Others, who will not wish to go before a disciplinary tribunal, will


feel rather frightened. They will inevitably go easy. To the extent that they go easy and to the extent that that is known to the white community, it will be to the disadvantage of the black community. The black community wants most of all to be treated equally. It does not wish to be singled out. It does not wish it to be said in a grandiloquent way that the Conservative Government have given it special grants under section 11 and protected it by special legislative provisions. It wishes to be dealt with on an equal basis. In that way it will become a welcome and prosperous part of our community.
By thinking that by this legislation we can, as some say, change for the better the minds of men, we not only disappoint those who are our natural supporters and who have deeply resented the immigration that has taken place over the past 20 years, but we do a serious injustice to the black minority. Let us not base ourselves on the rather clever view that this is an unimportant amendment put in by some old buffer in another place. It is no such thing. It is a real and important issue that we must decide on its merits.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I have listened to almost all the debate except for a short exit to have a snack and some refreshment.
Over the weekend I was disposed not to support the amendment. If I were in that position now, which I am not because I have changed my mind, I would have been in good company, because my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench did not support such an amendment when the Bill was going through the House previously. Furthermore, the peer who spoke in the other place on behalf of the Government did not support Lord Scarman's amendment. I should have preferred the amendment not to be written into the Bill and for the matter to be dealt with under the discreditable conduct offence procedure. However, we have moved beyond that.
I understand the anxiety of the police, and my hon. Friends have been right to emphasise their worries. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made an ill-considered speech in selecting some of the most extreme aspects of the PSI report. She would have done better to follow the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who made a telling case in a moderate way.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will assure us that if the amendment proves to be difficult for the police, because of misuse of its provisions by the public, he will come back to the House so that we may look at the matter again. That would be helpful.
There are four reasons why we should not reject the amendment. First, it would be wrong to overturn an amendment without being sure that the other place will accept our decision. There is no certainty they would do that. Secondly, we should be rejecting a recommendation made in the Scarman report and proposed as an

amendment in the other place by Lord Scarman himself. I remind my hon. Friends that we were pleased to receive the Scarman report when it was published.
Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend said that we would seek an acceptable form of words to cover this offence, and I assume that he will be discussing it with the police. Therefore, the police will have a say. They will not like it, but they will come to live with it. As I have said, if it is abused we can review it.
Fourthly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) hinted, if we turn down the amendment, our action would be misconstrued in the country. The ethnic minority would say that the House did not favour doing something that that minority believes would be helpful. Such a view would be mistaken, but it would exist. On balance, therefore, it is important for us to pass an amendment that we might have preferred not to have. Now we have it, we should, even if reluctently accept it.

Mr. Gary Waller: It has emerged from the debate that neither side has a monopoly of argument. I support what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, but I was not strongly convinced by her argument. I was more convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg).
Those who oppose the amendment have two distinct grounds. They ask why we should put racial discrimination in a special category. They ask why discrimination against the disabled or on political grounds should not be treated in the same way. There is a distinction. We have legislation dealing with racial discrimination. We do not legislate for discrimination against the disabled or on political grounds. There are strong reasons for that. It would be difficult to legislate to cover those categories, but it has been possible to legislate against racial discrimination and, so far as I know, the Government do not intend to repeal that legislation.
Another strong argument by those who oppose the amendment is that the police should not be put in a special category. They ask why regulations should relate only to the police. The answer is that the police are special. We demand special things of the police.
Those who are active on the picket lines indulge in behaviour in which we do not expect the police to indulge. If the police retaliated in kind, we would require them to be disciplined. If a policeman commits a criminal offence, we expect the penalty to be more severe for him than for an ordinary member of the public, because we expect the police to behave in a way that we do not demand of everybody. We demand excellence of the police and single them out.
There is another important reason for backing the amendment — it has the authority of Lord Scarman behind it. Lord Scarman spoke with the experience of his inquiry. The Government asked him to make recommendations and the amendment comprises one of those recommendations. It would be wrong to throw it out. It would be a bad message to go from the House. That is why I support what my right hon. and learned Friend said and the Lords amendment.

Orders of the Day — Police and Criminal Evidence Bill

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the nearly 21 years that I have had the pleasure of sitting in the House I have never experienced a more distressing occasion. I find myself in profound disagreement with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends for whom I have the greatest affection and respect, built up over many years of working together. It is no light matter to be in such disagreement with so many of one's good friends.
In anything that I say tonight, I hope that it will be understood that Conservative Members will conduct their disagreements in a civilised and courteous fashion, and that, when the disagreements are behind us, we shall as a party and as friends continue to work together in the common interest. We shall demonstrate that the way in which we disagree is far less venomous and lasting than the way in which the Opposition disagree.
I wish to make it plain that those who are responsible for the police service in Britain, whether the staff associations—all three of them—or the chief officers, are at one in being wholly opposed to any form of discrimination. I am careful to use the phrase "any form of discrimination". The oath of office and the pride of the police is that they are required to treat all citizens as equals before the law. Yet tonight, for the first time, we are saying to the police that they shall treat one group of citizens differently from the way in which they treat others.
We are approaching an extremely serious position in the police service. I choose my words carefully. Having worked closely with eight Home Secretaries, of both political parties, I have on two occasions only felt it right to utter a friendly but serious warning about the position in the police service. One was under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), when I said that the pay problems were causing a drop in morale, that there was an exodus from the service and real doubt whether the police could maintain their position. More recently it became necessary for me to say to Opposition Members that some of the things being done by their police authorities, notably to the special branch and the special patrol group, could put at grave risk the maintenance of the public law of Britain. Tonight, I have to say the same to my right hon. and learned Friend. I have not known a time when the police service has felt so let down by its friends.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Why cannot my hon. Friend, with all the authority that his position commands, point out to the police that they have never in their history had a Government who have supported them more staunchly? Why cannot he point out to those concerned that they have nothing to fear from tonight's amendment?

Mr. Griffiths: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I was about to come to that point. Before doing so, however, I remind the House that the police service is being attacked from the front by stones, air guns and petrol bombs, of the pickets and from the rear by irresponsible statements in Labour-controlled police authorities. At the same time, they have been faced by a publicly-financed campaign, notably by the GLC, to denigrate the police. Police morale is therefore a sensitive matter, and in those circumstances,

for our Government to place on the statute book the notion that the police have a greater propensity to be racially prejudiced than any other group is to take a risk that we shall live to regret.
10.45 pm
I come to the point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). After the events of the past few days when the police have been deeply worried about this amendment, their main reaction has been one of disbelief. The chairman of the Police Federation told my right hon. and learned Friend today that his feelings, when he heard what the Government were proposing, were feelings of disbelief. He had every reason to feel that, because no Government have done more for the police than this one, whether over pay, equipment, money for police recruiting, powers in the Bill or in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend, his predecessor and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have invariably stood up for the police when they have come under attack. The police are grateful for that. All the more reason why the Police Federation was so astounded when it appeared that the Government were going to lend their authority to the Scarman amendment.
The police have also been taken completely by surprise. The record in the two Houses of Parliament is that when the Scarman proposal was first put forward in his report after Brixton, the matter was considered by my right hon. Friend Lord Whitelaw, who was then Home Secretary, and following representations which I and the Police Federation made to him it was then placed before the Police Advisory Board. That is not made up just of police staff associations. It includes the local authorities, many of which are controlled by the Labour party. Having considered the Scarman proposal, the police advisory board unanimously advised the Government to reject it. That unanimous opinion carried with people such as Lady Simey, the Labour leader of the Merseyside police authority.
In the first Standing Committee, the House had to consider the same words that we have before us tonight, and that Committee was advised by the then Minister of State, the present Attorney-General, that we must under no circumstances carry the amendment. Subsequently, when we came to the second Standing Committee, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recommended that we reject the Scarman amendment, and the Whip in Committee who caused us to vote it down was my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). So on two separate occasions the Conservative party has been whipped by the Government into rejecting the Scarman amendment. The Conservative party is now apparently whipped into accepting it. Is there any wonder that the police are surprised? They are astonished at what has happened.
All of us here, of course, know perfectly well what has happened. My right hon. and learned Friend made no bones about it. He does not like the amendment, but he said that the Government were defeated in the House of Lords and we have to put up with it. Yet he knows well that throughout the past week or so the House has been regularly rejecting Lords amendments, for example, on the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill and many other Bills.
My right hon. and learned Friend has had to consider three Lords amendments to this Bill. One was the


amendment about whether the police should stop and search in uniform; the second was the exclusion of evidence, and the third was this one.
What I find surprising is the judgment made by the Whips in the House of Lords that their Lordships would accept two overrides from the House of Commons but not three. My right hon. and learned Friend decided that since he could not reject all three without their Lordships becoming irritated, he would reject the police out of uniform and the exclusion of evidence amendments, but he would not reject this one.
The attitude of the police service on this matter is that my right hon. and learned Friend rejected the two matters that affected the law and police operations — I am grateful to him for that — but accepted the one that damages policemen themselves. That is an important distinction, and that is why the police feel so strongly about it.
My right hon. and learned Friend agrees that the amendment remains unnecessary. He does not need to convince any of us of that, because Lord Scarman virtually said that it was unnecessary. He accepts that whenever racial discrimination is found it is stamped on by the most severe disciplinary action. Similarly, Lord Whitelaw made it plain that he was convinced that whenever the problem arose, the police service did its best to get rid of it. I think we are at one that the amendment is not necessary.
The question is whether the amendment is discriminatory against the police and offensive to them. My right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor was in no doubt that it was offensive to the police. He has acknowledged that to me in writing. Nor can there be any doubt of this. When the matter was debated in the House of Lords, speaking for the Government, Lord Elton did not simply say just that the amendment was unnecessary. On the contrary, he took the high ground of principle. The basis of his speech was that it was wrong to change the law of England to create a separate category of people who would have a privilege against the police that was not available to other people.
It is important to quote what Lord Elton said on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend. He said that the Scarman amendment was different in only one aspect from the existing police discipline code, namely, that the discipline code treated the public as a whole and did not extend a specific protection to a specific group from a specific wrong. He went on:
What would your Lordships be doing, if, contrary to our advice, you were to proceed with this amendment? What the House would be doing would be to say on the face of an Act of Parliament on the statute book that all members of ethnic minorities, for no matter how many generations they had been settled in this country, were inescapably different from the rest of the community. They must be inescapably different, because conduct towards them and them alone is to be singled out for specific mention in the law. Of uncivil conduct by a white policeman towards a white man in the street, one would be saying, 'Oh that is all right. We can deal with that as we have always dealt with it under the code of discipline'; but of uncivil conduct by a white policeman to a black man, or indeed by a black policeman to a white man, one would be saying by statute that that is different, and must be punished.
Those are not my words. They are the words of Lord Elton, speaking on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend. He does not simply say that the amendment is

unnecessary. He says that it is wrong, that it is discriminatory and that it distorts the law of England in an improper fashion
One other quotation must be made from Lord Elton's speech. He said:
I believe that your Lordships should think twice, and a third time, about making this specific amendment to treat in a different way, where it is committed against a black citizen by a white policeman, something which is already an offence when it is committed by a white policeman against a white member of the public. I do not think that that is the way to write our statutes." —[Official Report, House of Lords,  19 October 1984; Vol. 455, c. 1223–1224.]
The Home Secretary cannot say that the argument turns on whether the amendment is necessary. Lord Elton's words demonstrate that in the Government's judgment there is the broader issue of changing and distorting the law of England for the first time in a discriminatory fashion.
I remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of what I said at the beginning of my speech. I hope that our differences will be composed and that we shall somehow find ways of working together in the common interests of the police service. But I must also tell him this. From police officers in south Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Merseyside and the metropolitan force in south Wales where they are right up against it, at the sharp end of the pickets, and from police officers who are deeply involved at the moment in the difficult area of terrorism, I have received today messages that alarm me. The police cannot use industrial action to defend themselves, and I hope that they never will. I am one who believes that they should be statute-barred from any strike action and from joining the Trades Union Congress, although some would wish to do so. But the House must never forget that since we bar the police by statute from protecting themselves with industrial action, we have a special responsibility to protect them ourselves.
Not only are the police statute-barred from industrial action, but they can also be disciplined if they try to use any form of political action outside their duties. My right hon. and learned Friend would be the first to recognise that the Police Federation, a statutory body, has one great limitation that is not placed upon other such bodies. It may not go into the industrial arena. Nor can any police officer, where he is attacked under his discipline code, defend himself in a court of law. Other citizens can. The police alone cannot.
Therefore, in those circumstances I believe that the House, having set "up the Police Federation as a statutory body, has a special responsibility to it and its members. And the federation is begging the Government tonight not to place upon it a discriminatory discipline requirement which, in the judgment of the police, will damage police morale, damage their relations with the ethnic communities and make their task of upholding the rule of law and democracy more difficult than any Government should presume to make it for them.

Mr. Kaufman: As we come to the end of the debate, Conservative Members face the problem of whether to support their Government. We in the Labour party face no problem because the issue for us is whether we uphold the principles to which we have adhered throughout the passage of the Bill. When we vote on the amendment, we shall not be voting to uphold the Government; we shall not be voting to uphold a decision of the House of Lords. In


the Opposition, we shall be voting in favour of an amendment that we moved in Standing Committee many months ago, an amendment that the Government then rejected and defeated.
That amendment was taken word for word out of the recommendation at the end of the Scarman report on the Brixton riots, a recommendation which, when we debated the Scarman report, I, from the Dispatch Box, asked the Government to enact and which the then Home Secretary refused to enact. It is fitting that Lord Scarman himself, when at last given the opportunity in the House of Lords on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, should have moved his own recommendation and secured its incorporation in the Bill.
What has been said on both sides of the House, and by most people on both sides of the argument, is that racialism exists in the police to a lesser or greater extent. That is not in doubt. It is confirmed in the Policy Studies Institute report that was commissioned by the Metropolitan police themselves. It was confirmed in the Scarman report, which was why Lord Scarman made his recommendation in that report. It was confirmed in the Hytner report on the Moss Side riots. It was confirmed and still is confirmed by all of us who represent constituencies with substantial ethnic minorities who bring their complaints to us.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), does my right hon. Friend appreciate how disturbing it is when Members of Parliament who represent cities with large ethnic minorities seek to stir up trouble rather than standing on the common ground on which we all stand, recognising that most of the police do a sterling job but that the exceptions must be dealt with through the amendment?

11 pm

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) speaks not from a momentary connection with these matters but from 14 solid years' experience of fighting against racialism in the city of Leicester. What he says is confirmed by the commissioner of the Metropolitan police himself. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) seems to imply that supporting the amendment means making unsubstantiated allegations against the police, but only a few months ago Sir Kenneth Newman himself said:
The evidence suggests that if you are young and black and live in the inner city, the ties in the law and order contract with police officers are likely to be at their most tenuous." 
Therefore, that the problem exists is not in any doubt.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Lest there be any doubt, I should make it clear that I have a message from Sir Kenneth Newman stating that in his view it would be a mistake to pass the amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: If that is so, there is a serious inconsistency between Sir Kenneth Newman's views and what he wants to do about them. We should consider that very carefully indeed.
That racialism exists to a lesser or greater extent in the police force is not in doubt. The only question is what the House of Commons intends to do about it. Some Conservative Members have resoundingly said today that we should do nothing about it—some because they do not care and some because they do not want to know.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that to include the amendment in the Bill would be to treat ethnic minorities differently from the rest of the population, and he is quite right. Of course that would be so—because only ethnic minorities are subject to racialism, [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is subject to racialism, I should be interested to hear about it. Only the ethnic minorities are subject to racialism. Therefore, to take measures against racialism is to ensure that no one in this country is treated differently and that all are treated the same, regardless of colour.
Regardless of our decision today, although I am confident that we shall make the right decision, this issue will not go away. Millions of black British citizens, a large majority of them born in this country, are watching to see what we do. [Interruption.] These things are profoundly noted. Hon. Members who jeer do not have experience of this and do not have daily encounters with members of the ethnic minorities as I do in my constituency. Those minorities are watching to see what the House of Commons believes about racialism in the police force.
Racialism in the police force is different because the purpose of the police is to uphold law and order on behalf of all members of the community. If all members of the community, regardless of colour or ethnic origin, cannot rely on the fairness of all the police, they are lost and have no recourse to justice in our society. If that is what Parliament says to them, it will be saying something profoundly serious and disturbing. Not to carry the original amendment in Standing Committee was bad, but to reject the amendment now that it has been carried in the House of Lords would be a rebuff to the ethnic minorities that would resound throughout the country. Its consequences could be far-reaching. That is why the Government have shown good sense, however belatedly, in accepting the amendment.
When we vote for the amendment we will be sending a signal to the ethnic minority communities in this country that the House of Commons cares and that we have decided to act. Upholding the amendment will be a symbol of Parliament's determination to stamp out racialism throughout our society.

Mr. Brittan: With the leave of the House, I should like to comment on some, though by no means all, of the points raised. First, I should like to say how much I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said what he had to say. I wholly welcome his point about the way in which our party deals with its divisions and then proceeds together on the central purposes on which we are united. As so often with such debates, the purpose and the effect of the debate are not just to enable the House to reach a decision but also to tell the country about the way in which we approach these matters and what we have to say.
One point has been entirely beneficial, and there has been unity on it throughout the Chamber. The police have very understandably and properly expressed their anxiety, both to me and through my hon. Friends who have raised the point, that in not seeking to defeat the amendment passed by the House of Lords we are casting a slur on the police. Those anxieties must have been greatly allayed, if not removed altogether, by what has been said on both sides of the House. Those who are in favour of the amendment and those who oppose it share a common theme—that it is no part of the purpose of any hon.


Member, in passing the amendment, to cast a slur on the police or suggest that they are any way particularly prone to engage in the kind of misconduct that we are discussing.
The amendment singles out the police in the sense that it is the police who are dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—which is not surprising—but the police are in no sense being treated uniquely. We must remember the comparable provisions obliging immigration officers not to discriminate and the general provisions of the law which act on public officials in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of Departments, requiring them not to act in a discriminatory way.
One question, then, was whether the amendment represented a slight or insult to the police and singled them out in a unique way. The other main question was about why the Government were taking a different position today from that which was taken in the House of Lords by Lord Elton 10 days ago and which, as I made clear in opening the debate, we have consistently taken. There is no surprise about it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out, there is no mystery or surprise about it. Under our system of government the other place has frequently inserted into a Bill a provision which the Government have not previously favoured and which it was thought right to accept when it came to this House. There is a difference between deciding to favour an amendment and deciding to remove it once it has been inserted.
Bearing in mind the other provisions that the other place inserted, it is reasonable to say that we have asked the House to defeat the other place on two points because they would impede the police, but that we have not taken the same line on this matter. It is a matter of presentation. Racially discriminatory behaviour is already regarded as objectionable by the police and is an offence under the police disciplinary code. Presentation is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) and others have said that rejecting an amendment from the other place is quite different from not favouring it in the first place.
It is reasonable to talk about signals, presentation and how things will be received. It is not reasonable, however, if, when doing that, we support, permit or defend the insertion of something damaging. When the difference is small, if existent, it is reasonable that the balance of the constitution and presentation should be paramount.
For those reasons, I continue to recommend that the House should agree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Corbett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 398, Noes 30.

Division No. 477]
[11.12 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashdown, Paddy


Alexander, Richard
Ashton, Joe


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Aspinwall, Jack


Ancram, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Arnold, Tom
Bagier, Gordon A. T.





Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dunn, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Tony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Beith, A. J.
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Ellis, Raymond


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fatchett, Derek


Blackburn, John
Favell, Anthony


Blair, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Body, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bottomley, Peter
Fisher, Mark


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Flannery, Martin


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fletcher, Alexander


Boyes, Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Freeman, Roger


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fry, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruce, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Goodlad, Alastair


Butler, Hon Adam
Gould, Bryan


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian


Caborn, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Campbell, Ian
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hardy, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clarke, Thomas
Haselhurst, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cohen, Harry
Hayes, J.


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Hayward, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Coombs, Simon
Henderson, Barry


Cope, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Corbett, Robin
Hickmet, Richard


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cowans, Harry
Hind, Kenneth


Craigen, J. M.
Hirst, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Critchley, Julian
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Crouch, David
Holt, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hooson, Tom


Cunningham, Dr John
Howell, Rt Hon D, (S'heath)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Deakins, Eric
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dewar, Donald
Hunter, Andrew


Dormand, Jack
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Janner, Hon Greville


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dubs, Alfred
John, Brynmor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)






Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Mudd, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Needham, Richard


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Nellist, David


Kennedy, Charles
Nelson, Anthony


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Michael


Key, Robert
Newton, Tony


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Norris, Steven


King, Rt Hon Tom
O'Brien, William


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
O'Neill, Martin


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Knowles, Michael
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Knox, David
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Lamond, James
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lamont, Norman
Park, George


Lang, Ian
Parry, Robert


Latham, Michael
Patchett, Terry


Lawler, Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Leadbitter, Ted
Patten, John (Oxford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Pavitt, Laurie


Leighton, Ronald
Pawsey, James


Lester, Jim
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Pendry, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Penhaligon, David


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Pike, Peter


Lightbown, David
Pollock, Alexander


Lilley, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Litherland, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Powley, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Prescott, John


Lord, Michael
Price, Sir David


Loyden, Edward
Radice, Giles


Lyell, Nicholas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McCartney, Hugh
Randall, Stuart


McCrindle, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


MacGregor, John
Redmond, M.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Renton, Tim


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Rhodes James, Robert


McKelvey, William
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Maclean, David John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Maclennan, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McNamara, Kevin
Rifkind, Malcolm


McQuarrie, Albert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McTaggart, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


McWilliam, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Madden, Max
Robertson, George


Madel, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Major, John
Rogers, Allan


Malins, Humfrey
Rooker, J. W.


Malone, Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Maples, John
Rost, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Rowe, Andrew


Marland, Paul
Rowlands, Ted


Mates, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mather, Carol
Ryder, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Scott, Nicholas


Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sheerman, Barry


Meadowcroft, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mellor, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Merchant, Piers
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Michie, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Sims, Roger


Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Skinner, Dennis


Moore, John
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Snape, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moynihan, Hon C.
Soley, Clive





Spearing, Nigel
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Speller, Tony
Tracey, Richard


Spence, John
Trippier, David


Spencer, Derek
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
van Straubenzee, Sir W,


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Squire, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Steel, Rt Hon David
Waddington, David


Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walden, George


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wallace, James


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Stott, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wareing, Robert


Straw, Jack
Watson, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Sir John (Maidstona)


Tapsell, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Whitfield, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Winnick, David


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wolfson, Mark


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Woodcock, Michael


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thurnham, Peter



Tinn, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Torney, Tom
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Townend, John (Bridlington)





NOES


Bendall, Vivian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Montgomery, Fergus


Brinton, Tim
Onslow, Cranley


Budgen, Nick
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Forth, Eric
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Fox, Marcus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Stern, Michael


Harris, David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hubbard-Miles, Peter



Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mr. Eldon Griffiths and Mr. Peter Bruinvels


Lawrence, Ivan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 274, 275 to 281 and 283 agreed to.

New Clause

FUNCTIONS OF SEPCIAL CONSTABLES IN SCOTLAND

Lords amendment: No. 284, after clause 103, insert new clause:
. Subsection (6) of section 17 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (restriction on functions of special constables) is hereby repealed.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 301 and 363.

Mr. Shaw: The changes embodied in the amendments place special constables in Scotland on a broadly similar footing to their colleagues in England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 106

APPLICATION OF ACT TO ARMED FORCES

Lords amendment: No. 285, in page 93, line 30, leave out
Subject to subsection (3) below,

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 286 to 288.

Mr. Shaw: The principal effect of the amendments is to give the Secretary of State for Defence power to issue codes of practice specifically for use by service police investigators.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 286 to 323 agreed to.

Schedule 2

PRESERVED POWERS OF ARREST

Lords amendment: No. 324, in page 102, line 4, at end insert—
1959 c.37. Section 1(3) of the Street Offences Act 1959.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 325, 326 and 357.

Mr. Shaw: Amendments Nos. 324 and 357 preserve the power of arrest for prostitution conferred by section 1(3) of the Street Offences Act 1959. Amendment No. 325 preserves the powers of arrest conferred by section 13 as well as section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. Amendment No. 326 preserves the powers of arrest conferred by section 5(5) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments No. 325 and 326 agreed to.

Schedule 3

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 65 AND 66

Lords amendment: No. 327, in page 104, line 15, leave out
in proceedings in the Crown Court or a Magistrates' Court
and insert
tendered under paragraph 8 above in a magistrates' court, the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment provides that the offence of making false statements in certificate evidence is extended to fresh evidence put before the Court of Appeal.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4

THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 328, in page 106, line 3, leave out "office under this Schedule" and insert
an office to which he is appointed under paragraph 1(2), (3) or (6) above

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 329 to 341 and 348.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments tidy up certain technical points arising out of the creation of the new complaints authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 329 to 340 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 341 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 5

SERIOUS ARRESTABLE OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 342, in page 108, line 18, at end insert—". Treason"

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 343.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments add treason and causing death by reckless driving to schedule 5, which lists arrestable offences which are automatically serious.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 343 and 344 agreed to.

Schedule 6

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 345, in page 110, line 17, at end insert—

"Dogs (Protection of Livestock Act1953 (c. 28)
. In the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 the following section shall be inserted after section 2—
"Power of justice of the peace to authorise entry and search.
2A. If on an application made by a constable a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that an offence under this Act has been committed; and
(b) that the dog in respect of which the offence has been committed is on premises specified in the application,
he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises in order to identify the dog."."

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This gives effect to Lords report undertaking No. 14. It empowers a magistrate to issue a warrant to enter and search premises to identify a dog suspected of worrying livestock.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 346 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 347, in page 110, line 17, at end insert—

Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69)

. At the end of section 41 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (power to arrest in cases of soliciting by men) there shall be added the words "hut a constable may only do so in accordance with section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984."."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after 'so', insert
`when the offence is alleged to have been committed against someone other than a police officer and'.
Attitudes to homosexuality in society have changed over recent years. In a survey carried out by the Harris research centre and published in The Observer in September people were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that
Homosexuality is more tolerated by society nowadays than it used to be 
Eighty-four per cent. of all respondents agreed with that statement.
Therefore, it is surprising to reflect upon the lengthy debate in Committee on the question of entrapment and the conduct of the police in seeking to arrest people on charges to do with homosexuality in public lavatories and other places.
The Opposition received assurances from the Minister in Committee that the police would be asked to ease off in those activities. Those activities were not trivial and gave rise to a great deal of concern. Let me give one example of a complaint that I received from a constituent. He was driving past Battersea park at the edge of which there is a public lavatory. There was nobody there and he went in. He left and went back to his motor car, having noticed that the trap door into the roof area was open. Two police officers in plain clothes pursued him and questioned his motives for entering the public lavatory. In his letter to me he concluded that they had been observing the public lavatory from above it in the roof area to which the trap door was open.
Members of the Committee quoted many other examples and they asked whether the police had any sensible reasons for devoting so much of their time to keeping public lavatories under surveillance. The Minister gave us a number of assurances during those discussions. I can only mention in passing the raid on the Gay's the Word bookshop which served to give people the impression that there was an attempt to harass people of homosexual inclinations.
An additional serious arrestable offence was added to schedule 5 earlier—that being indecent assault which constitutes an act of gross indecency. Whatever individuals may think about that offence, I must say that it is surprising to me that it has been put on a par with murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping and other extremely serious matters in the definition of a serious arrestable offence. Hon. Members will be aware that that definition is important because it triggers off much greater police powers. It is a pattern of the Bill that when a serious arrestable offence is committed much greater powers are given to the police. Therefore, it is a matter of some importance.
Amendment No. 347 deals with the powers of arrest. The amendment was added in the other place to include the Sexual Offences Act 1956 in relation to the power to arrest in the case of soliciting by men. We have to consider that amendment this evening. But that amendment also

refers to the provisions of clause 24, which is concerned with the general grounds for arrest. Clause 24(5), which deals with offences against public decency states:
Nothing … authorises the arrest of a person for an offence against public decency unless the conduct for which the constable proposes to arrest him takes place in circumstances where members of the public going about their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person being arrested.
Much depends upon the phrase
members of the public going about their normal business".
It is not clear—perhaps the Minister will elucidate—whether that includes not just public lavatories, which I presume it may, but pubs, private clubs and similar premises. Will the Minister also explain whether the provisions can apply where there are no members of the public going about their normal business and it is only conceivable that they may do so? The case for amendment (a) rests largely on doubts about clause 25(5).
If our amendment is not accepted, it is possible that, as happened in the recent homosexual club incident involving an hon. Member who was, thankfully, acquitted, an offence may be alleged to have been committed against a police officer and no independent person will be able to corroborate what happened.
To put it bluntly, police officers have been acting as agents provocateurs. Not for nothing are the police described as "Our boys in blue jeans." Matters are serious if police officers not only spy on what happens in public lavatories, but go into homosexual clubs, dressed hike members of those clubs, with the sole aim of entrapping people into doing something that leads to a criminal charge. If the police had not been present, there would have been no offence, because there would have been no other victims. That sort of activity is a dubious one for the police to engage in, especially when people are subsequently charged and no one but a police officer appears as a witness or victim.
If police officers go to clubs to make sure that nothing improper is happening, it might be better for them to go in uniform and act as a deterrent to any conduct that they thought might be taking place. As it is, police officers not only wear civilian clothes but frequently dress in such a way that they appear to be members of those clubs. it is not right that police officers should be asked to do such work. I believe that most policemen find it distasteful; I cannot imagine that they enjoy it. They would prefer to be doing the sort of policing for which they joined the force.
Amendment (a) would bring pressure on police officers and those who send them on such jobs not to entrap homosexual men, whether in clubs or public lavatories. The amendment also provides that there must be a victim —an ordinary member of the public against whom an offence is alleged to have beeen committed. That is crucial.
Those in the homosexual community believe that the police are conducting a vendetta against them. The many incidents that have been made public provide adequate justification for the widespread support of that view.
Most of our constituents would prefer the police to be catching burglars, reducing street crime, catching bank robbers and so on. The more that police officers are diverted from protecting ordinary citizens in their homes and on the streets, the more disquiet there will be about the activities to which I have referred. I wish that the police would say bluntly, "We do not intend to go into the business of entrapment. We intend to take action only


when there are victims." That is the purpose of our amendment, and I hope that I have commended it to the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: After my remarks in the previous debate, I now have the opportunity to close ranks, support the Government on their amendment and advise them to reject the Opposition amendment to their amendment.
No police officer regards the duty described by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) with anything other than distaste. The police want no part of this peculiarly nasty business. But they have to respond to pressures from the public. One of the principal reasons why police officers sometimes keep watch on public lavatories is that the parents of local children become alarmed about what they believe may be happening. Sometimes children are molested. When that happens, the fears and anxieties of parents are great.
When complaints are made the police have no choice. They must do what they can to try to prevent molestation. I do not suggest that the natural action of homosexual males is to molest children. There is a distinction. Unfortunately, the public do not take as enlightened a view as the hon. Member for Battersea. Sometimes real fears and anxieties are transmitted to the police station. The police are expected by parents to do something about them.
The Lords amendment is just about right. It honours undertakings made in Committee. The amendment to the amendment was moved persuasively. But it is sad that the Bill should end up in a public lavatory.
The Police Federation is now restored to its general good standing in the House. It advises me that the amendment to the amendment is defective in that it would mean that if a police officer were solicited and made the object of a sexual assault at any time or anywhere, he would be incapable of taking any action against the offender. That is the technical consequence of the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: Surely a great, strapping police officer would have the recourse of thumping the offender.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is endorsing violence. I do not think that he intends that. Self-defence is a recourse, but we are dealing with the law. The advice that I have is that the Opposition amendment would lead to absurdity because no police officer would have a defence if he were the object of such molestation. On that ground alone, the amendment to the amendment should not be approved.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the amendment to the Lords amendment. On 14 May we debated at length and effectively the whole issue of entrapment and methods used by the Metropolitan police, particularly in the Earls Court area, to trap gay men into committing offences. We had a long reply from the Under-Secretary who ruled out the amendment then proposed. Unfortunately, the House also rejected it. The Under-Secretary was wrong to do that, and the amendment now before us gives him the opportunity to put that matter right.
The speech that the Under-Secretary made at that time contained two important points. One has already been

mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—that the justification for the appointment of plain clothes officers was the general complaint from residents about the nature of an area. There was no attempt, as there should have been, to encourage a visible patrol by officers in uniform. Instead, police officers were deployed in plain, often provocative, clothes to ensure arrests. The deployment of plain clothes policemen, whether or not any action is taken to incite an offence, is a form of agent provocateur. That is not good policing.
Amendment (a) states that the offence is committed only if a member of the public is involved, and not simply a police officer. That was the point of principle upon which the Under-Secretary rested his case in May.
There was also a point about administrative concern. The Under-Secretary gave the House a commitment. He told us of the guidance notes that the Home Office issued to the Metropolitan police. He said in correspondence that no member of the police force should counsel, incite or procure the commission of a criminal offence. That is the guidance given by the Home office to the Metropolitan police. He said also that he and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis were considering amending the commissioner's own notes and instructions to his officers. I have subsequently pressed that point in correspondence with Ministers at the Home Office. I find that the commissioner's instructions are not available to individual hon. Members. However, the commitment made to me was that the Home Office had put to the commissioner that the principle of not counselling, inciting or procuring a criminal offence needed restating in the section of his general orders that deals with plain clothes operations. Therefore, the only commitment is that the commissioner will simply restate the notes of guidance in the instructions to his officers. I do not regard that as sufficient.
Even though those guidance notes are issued from the Home Office to the commissioner, despite the broad debate in the House and the fact that the Under-Secretary made it crystal clear that the incitement of an offence by a police officer was not acceptable to him or the Government, the practice of entrapment in the Earl's Court area has continued. That should cause the House great anxiety, because it is clear that the wishes of the House and the Government, as expressed in that debate, have not been carried out in view of the policing operations which have occurred since then. On the practical level, I believe that the commitments made to the House then and the actions taken by the Home Office since have been insufficient to deal with the problem which was acknowledged at the time of the debate as being unacceptable to us.
I urge the Government not to dismiss amendment (a) out of hand, but to study carefully what is still happening in London; to study the effect of entrapment techniques upon members of the gay community in London; and to respond to the genuine fears of members of the gay community, some of whom are constituents of mine, who are extremely worried about what is happening.
The gay community feels itself under attack by what is happening— entrapment, the raid on Gay's The Word bookshop, and the raids on gay clubs and pubs in London. In the debate in May, the Government made it clear that entrapment, incitement and agent provocateurism were unacceptable. They gave us those "in principle" commitments. By putting forward this amendment we are asking that the Government put their legislation where


their mouth is and enshrine in the law the principle that, where such an offence is committed, it must be committed against a member of the public and not solely against a member of the police force, whether or not he is directly inciting an offence. That is the simple way to replace confidence in the way that the police operate, and for the Government to honour the commitment they made in May.

Mr. Wallace: My right hon. and hon. Friends support the amendment. One of the provisions of an amendment that I moved on Report was to remove from the criminal law those incidents where only the police had been involved—where there was no victim of the crime in the normal understanding of the word "victim". I made the point that while the police were using manpower and resources pursuing and prosecuting crimes without a victim, there were many crimes where there were genuine victims of muggings, thefts and burglaries where the police were not using their manpower properly. They would have been far better occupied chasing up some of those crimes.
Since moving that amendment I have received many letters of support from all parts of the country. On many occasions they related to people who had been prosecuted and were the "victims"; what happened to them afterwards with the disruption or breakdown of their family and business life; and incidents where no one other than a police officer was involved.
Two letters were about innocent members of the public who, as one person said, went to a public convenience for the usual purpose and who received a rude awakening from a policeman, and who was worried that if he had given a wrong look he may have ended on a criminal charge. The expressions,in the letters that I received were of the support that exists among the general public for the view that the police should not be wasting time on such exercises. The amendment is a limited attempt to curb the powers of arrest. For those reasons it has the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

12 midnight

Mr. Maclennan: I need not detain the House, because most of the arguments have been made. I hope, however, that the Minister will take the opportunity of the debate to say what developments there may have been since we last discussed the matter. I shall be especially interested to know whether the Metropolitan commissioner has issued new guidelines and in what terms. I have also received a substantial number of letters which suggest that considerable police resources must be being deployed on entrapment of the type that we are discussing.
It is becoming clear that the consensual view of the House is that it is a gross misuse of police forces to impose this task upon them. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that the police had to respond to pressure from parents and others in the community who complained about what was happening in public lavatories. But we all know that those are by no means the only circumstances in which activities take place. There are clubs, pubs and other places where homosexuals resort and where there can be very little question of anyone else being offended by what goes on there, because other members of the public do not go there.
This is of particular importance in the Metropolitan area. I have received more letters from people in the

metropolis than anywhere else. Forces there appear to be depleted. London's police have to cope with all the problems associated with terrorism and the protection of diplomats, high and rising rates of crime, and, in addition, they are being sent all round the country to deal with picketing problems.
I hope that the Minister will also take the opportunity to say by how much the Metropolitan police are under establishment and by how much they are under strain as a result of these additional tasks. It is a gross misuse of police establishments to allow officers to be deployed in the way that the amendment seeks to change. I hope that by what they say tonight the Government will show that they intend to act strongly to discourage the present practice.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to have an opportunity to respond to the debate. I should perhaps say at the outset that I shall be advising the House to agree with Lords amendment No. 347, which is a drafting amendment abolishing the specific power of arrest by a constable in respect of section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, dealing with soliciting by men, but leaving the offence subject to the general arrest conditions provided by clause 24.
For the reasons given already by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I am afraid that I cannot commend the Opposition amendment. That would mean that the police would be left with no remedy in cases which might arise where officers were themselves the complainants in cases of importuning.
I am not prepared to say, any more than I was when we debated the matter last time, that there are not circumstances in which it is perfectly proper for a police officer to be on watch outside or even inside a public lavatory or in other locations where there have been public complaints and where the officer might well be the victim of an approach which can properly lead to criminal proceedings.
It is important to note that at the moment section 32 of the 1956 Act is subject to an automatic power of arrest. We shall be modifying and reducing the powers of arrest if the House accepts Lords amendment No. 347.
About the necessity for the law, I can only say that when the Criminal Law Revision Committee had occasion to consider sexual offences, as it did recently, it had drawn to its attention the controversy about police activities in relation to section 32, and, in a footnote to its report, it said:
We have not thought it part of our function to advise how, or when, police officers should keep observation for the purpose of detecting the commission of this offence. In our opinion this should be left to the decision of senior police officers. The methods used are likely to depend, so it seems to us, upon where, and the circumstances in which, offences are suspected of being committed. Offences may be detected by police officers in plain clothes whilst investigating other and more serious offences. Police officers must not, of course, act as 'agents provocateurs'. While the police are reluctant to undertake the distasteful and time-consuming task of obtaining evidence on charges of homosexual soliciting, the Metropolitan Police evidence to us shows that when they do so they are responding to very strong pressure from local residents and others.
I submit that if there is a complaint in a neighbourhood that a public lavatory or some other public facility has become notorious so that, people are legitimately concerned about public nuisances going on there, and particularly about the effect on minors, it is perfectly


proper for the police to take an interest. It would be wrong if the message sent out by the House to the community was that people were not entitled to be troubled by such things.
I should say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the laws that relate to the creation of public nuisance, potentially —and actually in some cases—leading to breaches of the peace, are not confined to homosexual activity. In fact, section 32 of the 1956 Act can apply to heterosexual acts. The case of Dodd in 1977 established that the soliciting of two 14-year old girls was an offence under the Act. I do not think that it was the same Dod who produced the worthy manual on which we rely so much in the House.
A good deal of concern has been occasioned by manifestations of kerb-crawling is some parts of London and other cities. That is why the Government are minded to accept the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that there should be changes in the law, again on the same public nuisance grounds, to make the solicitation of women by men from motor cars, or the putting of the women concerned in fear, a criminal offence. We hope that progress will be made on that in the next Session.

Mr. Chris Smith: rose——

Mr. Mellor: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his enthusiasm for a moment, I intend to answer the points that he raised.
It is important that the debate should not proceed on the assumption that it is in any sense motivated by an animus on the part of either the Government or the police against homosexuals. It relates to a legitimate concern in the community about public nuisances that can be of a hetrosexual as well as a homosexual nature.

Mr. Smith: Will the Under-Secretary tell the House whether it is a more effective deterrent to such activity in a neighbourhood, lavatory or wherever, to have police officers patrolling visibly in uniform, or to have plain clothes officers stationed in the vicinity endeavouring—or not endeavouring — to entice the behaviour about which he is concerned?

Mr. Mellor: I say, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, that that point is central to the debate and is such that even I could not miss it. I was about to come to it and did not need to be prompted by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Smith: One never knows.

Mr. Mellor: One never knows, but the hon. Gentleman should give me the benefit of the doubt after 59 sittings of the Committee. I shall come to that point, which is important. However, perhaps I can do so in my time, and not be prompted by the hon. Gentleman. I wanted to prepare the ground with a little more care.
The question of the power of arrest, which is what the debate is about, is bound up with the question of whether the law should exist and the way in which it is to be enforced. We are not dealing with the existence of the law. In due course we shall have to consider the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report in toto. That body looked with care at the issue and made several imaginative suggestions for change, but I believe that it is necessary to retain section 32 much as it is at present.
On enforcement, there is all the difference in the world between that which results in proper policing — first

putting people on notice that the area is the subject of police attention by putting in officers in uniform—and actions which cross the line and become those of agents provocateurs. I should make it very clear that the enunciation that I made on behalf of the Government in May very much stands and has indeed had effect, as I hope and intend to show.
With regard to the arrangements to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has referred, I am sure that this would be in accordance with best practice. Indeed, in a recent radio interview, the commander of B division, which includes the very relevant area of Earls Court, made clear his view that when complaints are received it is important that uniformed officers should go in initially and that only if their presence fails to deal with the problem should plain clothes officers be used. Although, in the nature of things, plain clothes officers blend in with the community in which they are operating, it is important that this should not extend to some of the lengths that have been described. We attach considerable importance to that and have some progress to report.
The Home Office guidelines have always made it clear that behaving as agents provocateurs is not permitted for members of the police force. The guidelines put it in quite bald terms:
No member of a police force and no public informant should counsel or procure the commission of a crime.
The 1928 Royal Commission made it clear that an agent provocateur is
a person who entices another to commit an express breach of the law which he would not otherwise have committed and then proceeds to inform against him in respect of such an offence.
We have been discussing with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis how those very clear guidelines can be translated into more effective practice so that we do not continue to hear allegations, whether true or not, of police officers going into pubs and clubs wearing jeans with slits in interesting places. The consequence has been that a change in the Metropolitan police force orders was recently promulgated. In deference to the hon. Member for Islington South, and Finsbury and others, I will read it to the House. It is an amendment to the section dealing with plain clothes duties, forming a new sub-paragraph (2) after a sub-paragraph (1) which deals generally with such duties. It reads:
Officers selected for these duties must be briefed by a senior officer to ensure that they avoid behaviour which could give rise to legitimate accusations that they had acted as agents provocateurs. The term agent provocateur was defined by the Royal Commission on Police Powers in 1928 as a person who entices another to commit an express breach of the law which he would not otherwise have committed and then proceeds to inform against him in respect of such an offence".
The way in which we imagine that this will operate in the future is that plain clothes operations on male importuning within the Metropolitan police area should be authorised at area district assistant commissioner level and no lower. Only experienced officers should be involved, and they should be instructed upon the need for circumspection in the manner in which the investigation is carried out. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who so often seems to want to turn these matters into low farce, should seek to distract the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington South, and Finsbury, whose points I am seeking to answer. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington South, and Finsbury will not allow himself to be


distracted by any agent provocateur, as I believe that my comments are worth listening to, at least by those who posed the questions in the first place.
We envisage that only experienced officers should be used and that they should be instructed on the need for circumspection in carrying out difficult duties. In general, no one should be arrested solely on account of behaviour towards police officers although, if the offence is particularly flagrant, arrest may be necessary. Persons importuned who are not members of the police force should be asked to give their names and addresses and every effort should be made to persuade them to attend court. If they refuse to do so, a note should be made of the fact that the request was made.
In other words, every effort will — and, indeed, should—be made to ensure that such investigations are carried out in accordance with what I believe are strict guidelines and rules of practice which, if honoured, should lead to a diminution in the number of complaints. I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sunderland (Mr. Maclennan) that one cannot imagine circumstances in which such matters would be a top priority, but I believe that there are occasions when it is perfectly proper for a senior police officer to take the view that such an exercise is necessary.
12.15 am
If the guidelines and rules of practice are followed, cases in which an officer who is importuned is the complainant will be very much the exception. Where such cases are brought, every effort will be made to ensure that ordinary members of the public are there to give evidence in order to ensure beyond peradventure that there is a legitimate public interest in the enforcement of the law in that area.

Ms. Clare Short: If.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady, perfectly properly, says "if." I had to concede in May, and I concede now, that what happens on the ground is a matter for the conscience of individual officers, the vigilance of their superiors, and the effective operation of complaints and disciplinary procedures where there is any evidence of a breach. However, there is evidence of an improvement in the situation. I can give the figures for Earls Court. They may contradict what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said in his speech. If he has evidence of recent problems, I hope that he will let us have it.
In B district of the Metropolitan police area, which includes Earls Court, the figures for importuning show that in 1982 there were 117 such arrests, in 1983 there were 65 and in 1984, for the two thirds of the year until August, there were 12. The figures seem to be moving in a direction which those who have properly made their points tonight would welcome.
Progress is being made in this area. I ask the House to accept amendment No. 347 and to reject the Opposition amendment, even though it has been an extremely convenient and appropriate peg on which to hang the debate.

Mr. Kaufman: The debate has been worthwhile, and so was our tabling of the amendment, because we have elicited a statement from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and because it is only when we debate such matters in the House and draw the attention of the public

to the strong feelings held about them here that pressure from the House results in action such as we have heard about. That is why we will continue to press this issue in the hope of obtaining a more permanent amelioration.
Hon. Gentlemen talk about complaints from the public — the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) did so again this evening — but the public complain about other matters, too. At my advice bureau in Gorton Labour club a few weeks ago a woman came to see me whose face was a mass of appalling bruises. She had been attacked and beaten up by a man who had tried to rape her. She told me that there were many such incidents in her area. I immediately communicated with the chief constable about the situation, and I hope that action will be taken to protect women in that area.
Such offences are serious. Women who are beaten up and assaulted really suffer. They are the victims of crime. What we dealt with in May, are dealing with now and will continue to debate is the question of victimless crime. That is what these statutory offences are.
First, it is pointless to remove from the statute book legislation that persecutes certain sexual preferences and then in practice to persecute those who exercise those preferences. Secondly, in view of the shortage of police manpower and the enormous increase in crime, especially violent crime, crimes with victims should be pursued and the victimless crimes should be dealt with less persistently.
Because of the case that came to light earlier this year and was completed a few days ago which involved an hon. Member who suffered as a result of being dragged through the courts — only he and those close to him can understand how much he suffered—we have held this continuous debate and the public have been given an opportunity to express revulsion at police activities that result in such cases. In many of them, there is no doubt that the police dress themselves deliberately to entice. The Minister can say that when the police engage in plain clothes activities they try to blend in with the community, but, as he said, for a policeman to enter an environment such as that, dressed in a manner which he must have known would be provocative, and then to feel that his manliness has been impugned—although it is now clear that the alleged offence did not take place—is to stretch hypocrisy to its limits. What is in the mind of a person such as that to dress like that and go into a gay club? As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the Minister said., a policeman dressed in a uniform will stop anything that the police want to stop. The uniform is the deterrent.
When the Minister quoted some cases as examples of the need for our amendment to be rejected, he did not do himself justice as action against the cases that he cited would not be damaged by our amendment. Assaults, interference with 14-year-old girls and even kerb crawling could be dealt with if our amendment were accepted. It would not damage the upholding of law and order as it is understood by millions of people. We are considering the power of arrest. We are asking what we asked when the issue was debated in Committee months ago. Why is arrest necessary in these circumstances? The caution is all that is required. A caution by a uniformed policeman would have all of the deterrent effect required.
The debate and our tabling of the amendment have been worthwhile because we have elicited the Minister's statement. In the debate on the Scarman amendment, which the House wisely upheld, we had a declaration of


intent by the Government which the House decided to transform into a statutory provision. The Minister has made a statement of intent. I do not doubt his sincerity, but it is our profound belief that, for all his good intentions and for all the progress that has been made, that statement will not be acceptable or effect what it is required to effect until it also is transformed into a statutory provision. We say clearly and unequivocally that a change in the law is needed. We shall continue to press for that change, and I believe that within a measurable period of time we shall attain it. I hope that the Government will take the view speedily that that change in the law is required and that they will co-operate with us in enacting it.
My constituents, like those of all hon. Members, want law and order to be maintained. They want to be safe in their homes, neighbourhoods and districts. The distasteful manifestations to which we keep having to refer when we raise the issue do nothing to maintain law and order. They place the police in positions in which they are derided by members of the public. In the recent case there must have been derision against the police constable by millions of working people when they read in newspapers about his activities and his garb. Therefore, we shall continue to press the issue, even if we cannot succeed in our case tonight.

Question put and negatived.

Lords amendments Nos. 347 and 348 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 349, in page 111, line 13, at end insert—

Theatres Act 1968 (c. 54)

. In section 15(1) of the Theatres Act 1968 (powers of entry and inspection) for the words "fourteen days" there shall be substituted the words "one month"."

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 358.

Mr. Shaw: Amendment No. 349 extends the validity of a warrant issued under the Theatres Act 1968 from 14 days to one month. Amendment No. 358 cancels the repeal of the provision in the Act which sets out the period of validity.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 350 to 355 agreed to.

Schedule 7

ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF PARTS I TO V

Lords amendments Nos. 356 to 364 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 361, in page 122, leave out lines 6 and 7.

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is a result of the notification by the Law Commission that the Evidence Act 1877 was repealed by the Statute Law Repeals and Civil Procedure Act 1881, and therefore the repeal in this Bill is redundant.

Mr. Kaufman: We do not oppose this amendment, but we oppose the Bill. This is the last moment of debate on the Bill after one year and four days of consideration. The Bill started in a bad form and it finishes as bad legislation, although slightly less bad because of some of the amendments which we have been able to carry. Nevertheless, it remains unacceptable, and I therefore repeat the Labour party's commitment to repeal it as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 362 and 363 agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Garel Jones, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. Giles Shaw; Three to be the quorum — [Mr. Giles Shaw.]

To withdraw immediately.

Orders of the Day — Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): All four amendments involve privilege, and I shall cause the appropriate entries to be made in the Journal.

Clause 4

ASSISTED AREAS AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 6, leave out
Nothing in the substitution effected by this section
and insert
This section has effect subject to any provision of the commencement order under section 7(1)(b) below with respect to any description of financial assistance dependent on the designation of areas under the said section 1 and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, nothing in the substitution effected by this section".

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is the first of four small technical amend-ments——

Mr. Alan Williams: Substantive.

Mr. Lamont: Clause 4 removes the power to designate the assisted areas by reference to employment office areas, the main basis upon which the present map of assisted areas is drawn up. That is because travel-to-work areas, which are customarily used for assisted area purposes, are no longer built up of employment office areas; as those who served on the Standing Committee will know, they are based on local authority wards instead. A consequence of the change is that the present map, which is based on employment office areas, cannot be preserved for any purposes after the appointed day, except where specifically provided for. Before this Government amendment the Bill made two such provisions: the first is in clause 4, which preserves orders under the Derelict Land Act 1982; and the second is in clause 7, which preserves the present map in respect of regional development grants for a transitional period.
The Government have decided that the Bill should make another specific provision in respect of regional selective assistance offers. An offer for regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 must reflect the status of the area in which the project is to be carried out on the day on which the offer is made. If an application is made when the area is an intermediate area, and negotiations are based on the assistance available in that area, but during the negotiations the area is downgraded, the changed status of the area would make it impossible for the Government to proceed with an offer of selective assistance.
Should that occur, the companies concerned would—I hope the House will agree—have reason to believe that the Government had broken faith with them. Consequently, to avoid the summary cutting off of negotiations and the uncertainty which such a possibility would cause to a firm, the Government have decided that it is desirable to preserve, for the purposes of section 7,

the existing map for a period of four months following the announcement of the changes, to enable offers to be made in respect of applications received before the announcement.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) might have been right to say that this cannot be described only as a technical amendment, but the others are certainly technical amendments. It is a small, simple amendment that will benefit the companies concerned to their advantage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the amendment, and that he believes it to be sensible and uncontroversial.

Mr. Alan Williams: I agree with the Minister that this amendment and the others could have been taken at the same time, for the convenience of the House. They are probably acceptable, but I disagree with the Minister's implication that there was no need for discussion. It is well known that they will have an especially severe impact on Dunfermline, and several of my hon. Friends will wish to explain the relevance of the amendments in that context.
Unlike the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and thinking of the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) at the Dispatch Box, this Bill started bad and has ended no better. Tragically, it was devised to be applied in one context, but it will be applied, with all its penal sanctions on the assisted areas, in a deteriorating context. Therefore, its irrelevance is even greater.
Finally, I ask the Minister to answer three questions when he replies. First, what global sum does he now envisage will be deducted from the regional budget? Secondly, when shall the we have the debate that he promised us in Committee on the Government's new proposals that they hope to implement by means of this enabling measure? Thirdly, on what date does he hope that the orders will be brought forward?

Mr. Gordon Brown: The Minister has described the amendment as a minor and uncontroversial change. He suggested that it is merely a tidying-up measure that will benefit the depressed areas. However, the amendment involves a new and disturbing decision, the long-term effect of which will be to harm the areas that the Minister claims he is assisting. Having already decided that many areas will lose regional development grants, the Government have now decided that many areas will lose selective financial assistance. There are areas and industries that can receive only selective financial assistance, and they are now to lose that, even though in many such areas one in every six persons is out of work — twice as many as when the measures were first introduced.
The Government say that the amendment must be introduced so that industries and areas will not suffer in the short term, but its introduction proves beyond doubt that industries and areas will suffer in the long term by the loss of selective financial assistance. They are to be given extra help in the short term for four months, because they are to lose out in the long term—at least for the next four years. The decision has been announced in the way that we have come to expect of the Government. Introducing a new measure by announcing four months' delay in its implementation is a cynical manoeuvre that is rather like telling a man he is to be condemned to death by informing him that he has been granted a stay of execution.
The amendment, when taken with the rest of the Bill, means that the best regional policy measures, which began when unemployment was less than 5 per cent., are to be discarded when unemployment is three times as high. The amendment means that many areas are to lose selective financial assistance and the possibility of obtaining European regional development grants and loans for which assisted area status is a precondition and passport. The new and disturbing decision that is contained in the amendment —an amendment that we have to support—appears in stark contrast to Ministers' statements that selective financial assistance will increase significantly and substantially. The amendment makes it clear by implication that industrialists in certain areas who now receive selective financial assistance will not in future be entitled to it. As I have said, the Government promised that substantial and extra expenditure on selective financial assistance would be given. What comfort is that for areas that are now to lose the opportunity of any assistance?
The truth is that the Government are tearing up, instead of tidying up, the regional aid map. The amendment gains extra significance because I have been informed by those who care about the future of Scottish industry that the scale of the changes that the Bill foreshadows is major and that areas of Fife, the Central region, Lothian and Tayside are to lose their existing development status. Even the few areas in the east of Scotland that will retain aid will receive grants of a lower level. The cost-per-job ceiling for new investment is to be extremely low.
There is little comfort to be gained from knowing that the amendment is to recreate for four months the old employment office areas as a basis for securing regional assistance. Until last month no one could have been aware how large a difference there was to be between the old assisted areas and the new areas that are being proposed.
As a result of excluding areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and areas such as Cardenden in my constituency, which have some of the worst unemployment rates, and including areas, such as Kinross, outside the county of Fife, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates, the Dunfermline travel-to-work unemployment rate has fallen overnight. Despite that, nothing has improved for more than 4,000 unemployed in my constituency, and much has got worse. Although unemployment is rising in the Dunfermline district—by 1,000 in the past year—and will continue to rise to nearly 20 per cent., although the future of Rosyth dockyard in my constituency and the mining industry in the whole of Fife now hang in the balance, and although unemployment in the biggest part of my constituency—the Cowdenbeath jobcentre area—is already higher than the highest rate in the travel-to-work areas mentioned in the employment statistics, the Government have now cynically redefined what is clearly a depressed area into what they call a relatively prosperous area.
At a stroke of the pen, by a twist of the statistics, 38 companies in my constituency and in Dunfermline, West, which have received regional development grants and selective financial assistance, could lose the possibility of receiving them again. Six high technology companies in my constituency which planned to spend £50 million over the next five years could be attracted elsewhere to English

enterprise zones, to Ireland or to Europe. The future petrochemical development at Moss Morran, which is the one lasting benefit on land from North sea oil, and which should be the springboard for a new petrochemical and plastics industry, will not only be temporarily postponed but permanently cancelled if regional development fund grants and selective financial assistance are lost.
The amendment is characteristic of the Government's approach to the Bill. This is an enabling Bill in which the specific consequences for my area, or for any area, have been undisclosed. Worse than that, we now know that industrialists in my constituency and in other constituencies will have to apply for help, such as selective financial assistance or regional development grants, by the date that the new regional aid map, referred to in the amendment, is announced. Despite that, we have not been told that date, although I have it on some authority that it is to be 28 November. Is it not the height of cynicism to appear to offer help, but then to say that applications must be received by an unknown date for unspecified areas about which no information regarding their future can be given?
The Bill demonstates beyond doubt that the Secretary of State for Scotland has so far lost the battle for regional aid and industrial support. It shows that the Government have little intention of dealing with the consequences of their economic failure. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us five years ago that we could not have a Scottish assembly, but we could have a Scottish economic recovery. Over those five years, we have seen 1,236 closures in all and an unemployment rate that has doubled and then risen again, while the Secretary of State for Scotland has made a virtue of losing almost every industrial battle on the ground that he is winning the economic war. These amendments, and what we fear is in the regional aid map that will be released for November, show that the Secretary of State has only four weeks to win the fight that is vital for both the funds and what remains of the morale of Scottish industry. If he does not win, having lost innumerable battles for jobs over the past five years, we shall finally have lost the entire war.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The Minister has sought, during the course of the debates on the Bill, to reassure the House that aid to the regions would not be cut, and the accusations that some of us in Opposition have levelled at the Government, of cutting back on regional aid, were not true. However, here we are in the final stages of the Bill, with the promise having been given that the regional map will be published in the autumn, and we still do not know what the provision for regional aid will be, just as we do not know how, where and at what levels it will be applied. In the circumstances it is inadequate for the Minister to come to the House tonight without having published that information.
12.45 am
In recent weeks, with the publication of the latest set of unemployment figures there has been the confirmation, which many feared, that unemployment in Britain, far from getting better, is getting worse and will continue to get worse. Ghettoes are being created in the northern region, in Scotland, Wales and other parts of the country. They are ghettoes of people, young and old, who have been unemployed for long periods and who stand a chance of being unemployed for the foreseeable future. That "us and them" situation which has existed for too long now is being reinforced by the Government's current economic


policies. Unless regional aid is sustained at its current levels and, indeed, increased, it will be reinforced even further.
Those inequalities that have existed in the regions with high unemployment will be reinforced if the Government cut back on the aid that they have been giving in the past. Therefore, we should have had before us tonight, as we consider the final amendments to the Bill, exact details of what provision is to be made and how it is to be applied under this enabling legislation.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions that have been put to him by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and tell the House tonight how much Government funding there will be for regional development under the new provisions. If he cannot tell us tonight what the new map will be, can he tell us when the announcement will be made? The amendment should be welcome because it clarifies the situation. However, that clarification needs to go much further because there are many people in regions such as my own in many parts of the country who have been wondering for a long time about their future investments and how they would be affected by the Government's new policy. Vast companies in Britain have been waiting for the Government's announcement before making investment commitments because they simply do not know what Government aid will be forthcoming under the Bill.
I urge the Minister to make it clear this evening when the new maps will be published and when the new levels of grant will be made clear. We shall then have the clarity we require, we shall have an end to the uncertainty and we might be able to get ahead with some of the schemes that have been waiting in the regions for the announcements that the Government should have made before now. I hope that when that announcement comes there will be a clear commitment from the Government that they will not cut back on the level of aid but rather increase the aid which the regions now desperately need.

Mr. Dick Douglas: In the long passage of the Bill, which is really two Bills, one has sought to try to unravel what the Government had in mind on regional policy. I have been reminded of a phrase used by Churchill when he was trying to unravel what was in Russia's mind when he spoke of
a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
The puzzle about the Government's regional policy is in trying to determine exactly whether they have such a policy.
I should be called to order if I were to go over all the debates on Second Reading, but one significant feature of the Bill was the clear sign that the Government's intention was to reduce the level of regional aid.
The clause relates to the definition of development areas. We know that the Government's intention is to seek new building blocks for development areas. We are told in the Department of Employment's Gazette  that
Travel-to-work areas generally form the building blocks for defining the regional industrial policy assisted areas, though the travel-to-work area boundaries are not always followed in defining every Assisted Area.
The Department of Employment's publication includes an elaborate statistical analysis and talks in scientific terms of algorithms used in five stages. I do not know what strange algorithm puts together as an assisted area the whole district of Clackmannan with the district of Kincardine and Culross in my constituency. My hon.

Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has pointed out that the whole of Dunfermline has as an appendage the wards of west Kinross and east Kinross.
There may be an elaborate scientific, statistical explanation for that, but there is no commonsense explanation. The real reason, certainly in the case of Dunfermline, appears to be to try to reduce the unemployment statistics so that the area falls out of assisted area status.
I hope that the Under-Secretary, who has some knowledge of Scotland and of the problem that we loosely refer to as peripherality, will, recognise that unemployment statistics alone should not be the touchstone of whether an area is assisted.
In the west of Fife, we have a high concentration of mining employment, and the census statistics of 1981, on which the travel-to-work areas are based, could not reflect the plight of the Bogside mine where we lost 800 jobs at a stroke. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and I have had many meetings with the Coal Board, but we have had no adequate explanation. The coal industry in the area hangs in the balance for many reasons, some connected with the dispute and some that have nothing to do with it.
The mystery of the Government's policy is that they say that they are to have a regional policy, yet they are dismantling all the apparatus of regional policy and what we used to call the carrot and the stick. There is no sign that the Government consider the social cost of having a high concentration of employment and people in the south east and the midlands. No attempt is made to evaluate the "external diseconomies".
The enigma of the Government's policy is their claim that they represent the whole nation. If they are really interested in the whole nation, they should examine where the fingers of growth should be concentrated for the benefit of the nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East referred to Moss Morran and Braefoot Bay. In a few weeks' time, the Secretary of State will open Moss Morran — a plant which might not have been located in that area if capital development grants, which are in danger of being abolished, had not been in place. Downstream development is essential for gaining the full benefit of the petrochemical complex. The Government must preserve some form of capital development grant, at least by selective financial assistance. We have no assurance on that.
We are afraid that the pull of the south-east and midlands votes for the Government will throw the whole of Scotland on the scrap heap. We have had no assurance that that will not happen. We are not confident of the Secretary of State for Scotland —the man of the Star Chamber. Imagine picking a Secretary of State for Scotland to preside over a Star Chamber to cut public expenditure. What a joke. What a laugh. The Secretary of State is supposed to correct regional imbalances and to defend Scotland's corner. In Scotland we have survived, particularly in the last 20 years, because Governments of all colours have tilted the balance towards regions such as Scotland, the north, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The enigma is that the Government are ostensibly trying to look after the whole nation, but they are willing to forget that because of the votes that they can buy in the south and the midlands. Such votes will be bought dearly. We in Scotland will resist.

Mr. David Harris: I disagree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) about the timing of the operation. I was suspicious of the Government's plans for announcing the assisted area map. I thought when the House adjourned for the summer that it might be sneaked in when the House was not sitting. I should have deplored that so I welcome the lack of announcement describing the location of new assisted areas. However, I agree with Opposition Members that the Government should clear the uncertainty about what should constitute future assisted areas and their status. I urge the Minister to give tonight the date that the Government expect to announce the new assisted area map. I look forward to that with some hope and some trepidation.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister received some of his education in my constituency, but he has demonstrated today that his education is sadly lacking because he tried to sell the idea that we are discussing a technical amendment. The amendment has considerable significance because it has a bearing on the designation of areas that will receive regional development grants.
That is of little more than academic interest in my constituency because the Secretary of State for Scotland has already sold out my part of Scotland. East Lothian is no longer an assisted area and that has had damaging effects on my constituents.
The Government's strategy on industrial development and promoting the economy in various areas has been shown to have failed. My constituency and other such areas have lost the development incentives. There is mounting unemployment with factories and workshops standing empty as employers move to areas with incentives. Such discrimination cannot be right.
1 am
People involved in business and industry tell us that in the present economic climate development and investment incentives make all the difference. Business men are closing their businesses and moving to areas with incentives. There is a general need for incentives throughout the country, but especially in areas of high unemployment. I do not want the experience of my constituency to be repeated in Fife or the other areas mentioned that stand to lose because of the Government's strategy.
The Government's whole strategy is wrong and misconceived. I deplore what they are doing. The details of the areas that will be harmed are leaking piecemeal. I hope that the Minister will say more about that later, but past experience gives us little ground for confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said, everyone in Scotland must be alarmed that someone as patently inadequate as the Secretary of State is standing up for our rights in the Cabinet. Heaven help us all.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The debate, although brief, has encapsulated the whole problem of regional development. The speeches have been of a predominately Scottish character, but that is not inappropriate because Scotland has been the largest single recipient of regional assistance. The four constituencies represented on the Opposition Benches cover both sides of the estuary of the Forth.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and I represent the tranches of land on the northern shore of the Forth which, in many respects, are similar. The only difference is the marginal changes in unemployment. The latest statistics for travel-to-work areas are different from those for local authority areas. The massaging of the statistics is all the easier because of the artificial creation of adding areas such as Kinross, which has given a wholly distorted picture for the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East and shows my area as being similar to what it was previously. We have levels of unemployment that are sufficiently intolerable to require fairly substantial assistance.
In the central belt of Scotland unemployment is about 16·2 per cent. on one calculation. In my constituency—I give this only as an example—unemployment in the Alloa travel-to-work area is 19·7 per cent. In Falkirk it is 17·9 per cent. and in Stirling 11 per cent. That means that some of the villages in my area will be assaulted by the proposals which this enabling legislation will doubtless produce. Those areas will be denied assistance. Some people who live in areas of considerable deprivation, who have little prospect of alternative employment, will be denied alternative resources because of the way in which the map has been drawn as a result of the Minister's legerdemain.
Other parts of the area will find that they will continue to be entitled to receive assistance but that the local authorities' capability to give it will have been reduced because of the way in which the boundaries have been established. Two-thirds of the Central region—I argue this in the context of my constituency because it usefully fits the bill—will probably be denied the kind of aid that it is at present enjoying while the other third will continue to receive it. The local authority will be required to continue its attempts to attract industrial development.
Under the amendment we shall find that considerable confusion will be caused not just for the four-month interim period, but for much longer for the normal agencies involved in the bids made by firms for assistance. The firms will be not chasing larger sums of money, but scrambling to obtain the few crumbs that the Minister and others have decided are enough for those parts of the country which over the years have shown themselves to be in need of regional assistance.
There is no doubt on either side of the House that regional assistance policies have been of considerable help to Scotland, the north-east and the north-west. The Government's proposals are designed not to improve the economic climate, but to reduce the amount of money available to those parts of the country which need assistance.
The amendment, if the Minister is to be believed, is purely a tinkering, technical one. That is the attitude that we had throughout the Committee stage. There is no meat, as has been said in the American presidential election. Everything has been of an enabling nature, according to the Minister. At some stage in the future—and perhaps 28 November will be the magic day when all will be revealed — out of the hat of the Department of Trade and Industry will come the sorry representation of what was once regional policy. We shall see a few prizes for those areas which in the past have been foolish enough to vote Conservative. For the rest of the country which has put its money where its mouth is and voted for the benefit


of Keynesian regional policies, which have been the hallmark of consensus in regional policy since the mid-1950s, the Minister and the Government have sought to crack the idea that the less advantaged areas of the country would be given the support and assistance that the people and industries felt were necessary to prolong their activities and help them. Those policies have been cast aside on the basis of simplistic criteria; they have been based on the fudging and distortion of statistics.
If the same kind of gerrymandering had been attempted with our constituency boundaries as has been attempted for the areas which will be entitled to the kind of assistance on which they have depended for their economic survival, there would have been a constitutional uproar in the House. Because it is larded with the regional and economic jargon of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the Scottish Office industry department, somehow it is lost in the mists of the spells of economic magic that the Government are trying to create.
The Opposition cannot oppose the clause because it has within it a four-month transitional period. It is little consolation that we merely get a stay of execution for another four months, but we are grateful for it. However, we recognise that at the end of the four-month period the prospects for areas which hitherto have depended upon regional assistance and the opportunities that it has provided for confident expansion of their industries are extremely bleak. Their hopes will be dashed. The economic miracle which we are annually given to believe is just around the corner will remain remote. Even the London Business School's forecasts of opportunities suggest that we shall see no reduction in unemployment. At the end of the day, the test of regional policy will be the level of unemployment across the country.
Areas of high unemployment will be cheated out of much-needed aid by the gerrymandering of a Government who are concerned not with assisting areas which are in difficulty but with cheese-paring and giving money and assistance to those areas which have been their short-term electoral allies. They will not support this tawdry regime for very much longer.

Mr. Norman Lamont: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the debate.
The speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was itself a pretty large sandwich without much meat in it. I read that when Senator Hart was making some of his long speeches, people in the audience used to hold up pieces of bread. If the hon. Gentleman had gone on much longer, he might have had the same reaction.
We had a number of remarks in the debate which were very much of a Second Reading nature. I intend to address my remarks to the amendment, which means that I can be extremely brief, because very little about the amendment has been said by Opposition Members.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) raised a legitimate question about the timing of announcements. We hope to make the announcements on the map within a few weeks. The orders will be made at the same time. I cannot comment on the public expenditure considerations.
I may have made a mistake in describing this as a relatively small amendment, but certainly it should have been welcomed by the Opposition. It has not been welcomed, partly because the Opposition wanted to make their Second Reading speeches and partly because—no

doubt the fault is mine for not explaining it adequately —they have completely misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. It was to allow transitional arrangements to operate for selective assistance. That should be welcomed — in the assisted areas industrialists will continue to get selective assistance for a longer period. We have put in transitional arrangements for selective assistance that are analagous to those for regional development grants. That is a plus point, not a minus point. All the frothing from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has no basis.

Mr. Williams: The Minister should bear in mind that I welcomed the amendment on behalf of the Opposition. However, his point to my hon. Friends about what he called Second Reading speeches highlights a question that I asked him, which he has not yet answered. When shall we have a debate? One of the reasons why there have been Second Reading speeches is that as yet we have not had an opportunity of a proper debate on the basis of the policy that the Government intend to bring forward——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is true that the debate has ranged rather wider than the terms of the amendment on the Order Paper. I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is not now trying to widen it still further. We should keep to the amendment.

Mr. Lamont: As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) well knows, a debate on the announcement and the principles of the Government's regional policy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We have said again and again that we are well aware of the intense interest in this subject. When important announcements are to be made, my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to the strong feelings that have been expressed again and again about having a full-scale debate on the proposals.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East described this as a new and disturbing amendment. There is nothing new or disturbing about it. It enables selective assistance to be paid for a transitional period—that is, to be paid for a longer period. The hon. Gentleman made many remarks about the travel-to-work areas, but there is nothing new about the composition of the travel-to-work areas in the amendment and the reference to employment office areas. All that we are doing is making sure that the arrangements that apply to RDGs will apply also to selective assistance. That is to say that the old map for a transitional period cart continue for selective as well as for automatic assistance.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there was anything new about the idea the map where assistance is paid being re-examined and altered, all that I can say is that I do not know where he has been far the past few months. Everyone in the House knows that the map is being revised. That includes the areas that get selective assistance as well as those that get RDGs, but by the amendment we are making the transition easier. The hon. Gentleman has no basis to make the great speech that he did about Dunfermline being downgraded, because he simply does not know.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister agree that the amendment is necessary only because some areas will lose selective financial assistance entirely? Will he comment


on the position of Dunfermline district, which he has already mentioned, and say whether he will look again at the travel-to-work areas that the Government have designated in the recent Employment Gazette?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I cannot comment on Dunfermline or any other travel-to-work area. He knows the answer to that question. He will know that the travel-to-work areas are designated by the Department of Employment on the basis of objective criteria — that is the building block of the assisted area map. We have to use them, but the hon. Gentleman cannot come to the conclusions that he reached about what will happen to Dunfermline because those map decisions are being made, and an announcement will be made in due course. The hon. Gentleman has no basis for what he said about that. He also has no basis for saying that we were compelling industrialists to make decisions on unknown areas. That is the opposite of what the amendment does. It enables people to carry on making decisions on the basis of the existing map. The hon. Gentleman got it precisely wrong.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to the uncertainty of the review, and I appreciate his feeling. We all want to get this matter settled as quickly as possible, but I could not possibly come along and announce the map today. We have to get the Bill through Parliament, get Royal Assent and the commencement order and make all these related decisions. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is so.

Mr. O'Neill: That is a feeble argument.

Mr. Lamont: There is nothing feeble about it. The point raised was feeble and called for an obvious answer.
I cannot go through all the arguments about the Government's regional policy. They were fully debated on Second Reading and in Committee. I assure the House, however, that the amendment should be seen as benefiting people rather than disadvantaging them. In that sense, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1

NEW REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 9, leave out line 21 and insert
the date when expenditure was first defrayed on the provision of any asset comprised in the project;

Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendent No. 3.

Mr. Lamont: I think that this can be described as a technical amendment. The purpose is to correct a defect in new section 3 of schedule 1.
New section 3(3) of schedule 1 is concerned with the qualifying date of the project — that is, the date on which the project has to satisfy certain conditions to be eligible for grant. The date matters because the rates of grant and the assisted areas map in force on the qualifying date will normally be those which apply to the project for its duration, irrespective of any subsequent changes in rates of grant or in the map. This means that companies can rely on RDG being available at the same rate throughout the lifetime of a project, which is different from the present scheme.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister have any consideration in mind relating to the Nissan project in this context?

Mr. Lamont: No, this does not relate to that project.
The aim in drafting the Bill was to make the qualifying date either the date of receipt of the application for approval of the project or, if earlier, the earliest ascertainable date when action was taken under the project, which means in effect the date on which the first asset is provided or the date on which expenditure is first defrayed.
Before the amendments were introduced the qualifying date under the Bill was the earliest of three dates—the date of receipt of the application, the date on which the first asset was provided, or the date on which expenditure was first defrayed on that asset. The last three words are the key words. They assume that the first expenditure defrayed will be on the first asset provided, but that is not necessarily so because expenditure may be defrayed very early on in relation to an asset not provided until near the end of the project. Buildings or equipment may have a long lead time and a deposit may be paid at the time of the order, so expenditure may be defrayed long before the asset is provided.
The Bill as it stood would have set the qualifying date by reference to the first expenditure defrayed on the first asset provided rather than by reference to the first expenditure defrayed on any asset. I hope that that is clear. In other words, the first asset provided is not necessarily that on which the first expenditure is defrayed. The original drafting assumed that they were the same. The amendment will be of advantage in those cases where they are not the same. I think that that is a simple point.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Rent (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

PROHIBITION OF PREMIUMS ON GRANT OR ASSIGNATION OF FURNISHED LETTINGS

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 58, line 12, leave out "tribunal" and insert "assessment committee".
The amendment is necessary to correct an oversight in the Bill. The functions of the rent tribunals were transferred to the rent assessment committees by virtue of section 52 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, but in the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, from which clause 85 is derived, the reference to the rent tribunal failed to be translated accordingly. The amendment puts the matter right. The chairman of the joint committee, Lord Brightman, has been advised of the amendment and concurs in its terms.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 85, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 86 to 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 10 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Orders of the Day — South Bank, London

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Tony Banks: I have always dreamt of speaking in an Adjournment debate so early in the morning. Perhaps we should regard this debate as practice for debates on the legislation that we understand will probably be set before us next Session.
Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House what is happening on the South Bank—one of the world's greatest cultural centres — which is now facing serious threats because of the Government's misconceived proposal to abolish the Greater London council.
Last week the GLC's arts and recreation committee received a report on the first 12 months' operation of the open foyer policy in the Royal Festival hall. That policy was initiated by the GLC in the face of considerable ill-informed opposition from many sources. The council's intention was to transform the Royal Festival hall from a graceful, middle-aged concert hall, poorly attended by a dwindling band of graceful middle-aged people, into a thriving arts centre. The GLC's success has been conspicuous by any standards. Instead of being open for evening concerts only, the Royal Festival hall is now open from 10 am every day, providing a complete range of arts activities—free music of all kinds, exhibitions, dance and theatre. The halls teem with life throughout the day, and the public have responded magnificently to the GLC's innovation. We now attract a younger and wider cross-section of society, and this in turn has helped to improve concert audiences and income for the halls.
I can give specific examples of our success. A decade of decline in concert audiences has been halted. The number of first-time concert-goers has nearly doubled. the percentage capacity of the Royal Festival hall is up by 4 per cent. — the largest increase in 12 years. We are touching 1 million ticket sales for the three halls—the Royal Festival hall, the Queen Elizabeth hall and the Purcell room. We have attracted 1 million visits to the Royal Festival hall foyers in addition to the 1 million concert attendances. Nearly 500,000 concert attendances and foyer visits have been made by people who came to the Royal Festival hall for the first time in 1983–84. That is precisely what the GLC set out to achieve by breaking down the barriers that, I regret to say, surround many of our arts institutions. There has been a 64 per cent. increase in concessionary ticket sales, concentrated on pensioners and the unemployed. The profits to the council — something which will interest Conservative Members—from a revamped catering service and the introduction of shops has been about £200,000 in the past year. All that has been achieved in just over 12 months. Nobody can deny the GLC its success, which has been achieved without breaking any contractual arrangements or any lessening of the highest possible artistic standards. The GLC's policy has been to liberate the arts from the domination of the selfish and the unimaginative and to give the maximum number of Londoners opportunities to enjoy the finest available art forms.
The GLC's arts policies have achieved much in the past three years. I believe that it ill behoves a junior Minister in a Government of mediocrities and second-raters to


describe the council's proposals for the Hayward gallery as vandalism, as did the Minister in a recent Arts Question Time. I remind him that it was the Labour London county council that built the Royal Festival hall and a Labour GLC that built the Hayward gallery. The same council provided the site for the national theatre and the national film theatre and still helps to fund both. Without the London county council and its successor body, the GLC, there would be no arts complex on the South Bank.
In that context, we should examine the GLC's current proposal to exercise its legal right to give the Arts Council six months' notice that it will assume full responsibility for the Hayward gallery. As with the Royal Festival hall, contracts will be honoured, but the council will try to integrate the Hayward more fully in exciting new developments on the South Bank. The Hayward's failure to maximise its appeal to visitors was the main reason for the GLC's proposal. It has achieved the scarcely desirable reputation of the most closed art gallery in western Europe. That could not be allowed to continue. It is not the Art Council's function to run art galleries or concert halls. Sir William Rees-Mogg expressed a similar view about a year ago when he was trying to extricate the Arts Council from the Hayward and Serpentine galleries. That being so, one would have expected some expression of gratitude from the Arts Council rather than peevish comments about possible legal challenge. When what I have described is judged, it will become clear that the description of what the GLC proposes as vandalism is ill fitting.
The South Bank is far more than activities inside arts centres; it is a massive outdoor arts arena in which the GLC has initiated a wide range of enormously popular festivals. Thames day, South Bank day, the Children's Festival and South Bank weekend attract audiences of about 250,000. To bring more life to the South Bank—one of the loveliest parts of London—the GLC last year opened the Festival pier, which is the first new pier to be opened on the Thames in the past 30 years. The distinguished architect, Mr. Cedric Price, produced some exciting futuristic proposals for consideration by the GLC and Lambeth borough council.
British society is moving towards more holidays for those who are in work, and we have to try to cater for the enforced leisure that the growing number of unemployed, caused by Government policies, have to endure. Matching those two needs requires a great local authority, such as the GLC, to provide artistic and recreational events for our people. Too many working-class families who live in flats view the advent of school holidays with alarm, as it can be a time of nerve-racking distress that can be alleviated only by increasing the number of organised events in parks and open spaces. The South Bank provides many such opportunities. Clearly it is nonsense to expect Lambeth borough council or Southwark borough council to replace the GLC's finance and expertise, which are necessary to organise the huge festivals that Londoners have come to look forward to and enjoy.
Among events on the South Bank are the London marathon, the Easter parade, open-air concerts at Kenwood, Crystal palace and Holland park, the Greater London horse show and the May festivals. They are all under threat directly from the abolition of the GLC. Tonight I want assurances from the Minister about their

future, instead of the usual bland, complacent utterances about the boroughs taking responsibility. How can they be assumed to take responsibility, when their councils are to be rate-capped, and the events that I listed are regional rather than borough activities?
The Arts Council is clearly worried about being made responsible for the South Bank. I have seen a confidential memorandum from one of its directors. He states:
the South Bank would set up an anomaly so long as it remained administered by the Arts Council.
The Arts Council has neither the wish nor the expertise to assume responsibility for the South Bank.
That would not be the only anomaly arising from the abolition of the GLC, which is Government policy and which presents a prime political example of speaking first and thinking afterwards. When the Prime Minister personally wrote the abolition of the GLC into the 1983 Tory party manifesto, she committed an act of gross folly, which was subsequently compounded by constitutional outrage, the consequence of which will dog her party in London for many years to come. But I am no mourner for that news.
The Government say that they have provided sufficient extra funds for the arts to replace those of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Such a claim represents a deception to the art world and to this House. Of the £34 million additional funding to be provided, £16 million is earmarked for both the GLC and the seven metropolitan county council areas—but only for the first few years. In London, the GLC alone spends about £18 million on the arts, excluding museums, historic houses and so on, which are catered for from the Government's additional allocation. That means that someone will seriously lose out if the GLC is abolished.
The South Bank arts complex receives no less than £9 million from the GLC. The money is spent on the concert halls that I mentioned, the national theatre, the national film theatre, the London orchestral concert board and the South Bank open-air events. Do the Government seriously suggest that the Arts Council will dedicate that level of resources to the South Bank? If so, what will happen to the rest of England? There will not be much left to go round.
We need some straight talking from the Minister. To that end, I shall ask him six specific questions, of which I gave him prior notice in the hope of achieving sensible answers. First, will the Minister join me in congratulating the GLC on the success of its open foyer policy in the Royal Festival hall?
Secondly, will he give an assurance that adequate resources will be made available to the Arts Council for the maintenance of the open foyer policy and related activities.
Thirdly, will he state the likely date for the setting up of the proposed South Bank board? What will be its responsibilities? What sort of people will constitute its membership?
Fourthly, will he give an assurance, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, that Thames day, South Bank day, the London marathon, the steel band festival, the brass band festival and the South Bank weekend will be continued?
Fifthly, will he give an assurance, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, that the Jubilee gardens will continue to be made available for demonstrations and open-air events?
Sixthly, will he give an assurance, in conjuction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, that no commercial development will be allowed on the South Bank? Perhaps in that context he would wish to say something about a possible new portrait gallery in that area.
Perhaps the Minister can say that the Government have decided to drop their abolition proposals. There is still a little time for sanity to prevail.
The proposal to abolish the GLC, which was founded on political malice, now goes forward on a wave of mounting Government despair and unbelievable ignorance. In the case of the South Bank, the GLC is trying desperately to prevent the Government from perpetrating one of the grossest acts of vandalism in the history of public funding of the arts. To try to head this off, I have even invited the Minister to accompany me to the Royal Festival hall —an invitation that he has still not taken up. But I shall send similar invitations to all London Conservative Members. Perhaps none of them may relish my company, but they owe it to themselves and to Londoners to see at first hand all the admirable things that I have described that happen on the South Bank and that are imperilled by Government policy.
If the GLC is abolished, I fear that the South Bank will return to the drabness from which the Greater London council was gradually rescuing it. If that happens, the Government will have earned the rightful condemnation of all decent Londoners.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has made his usual speech. We need a scare for the week; as the arts world has been rather quiet—the hon. Gentleman is not doing his job — he has been sent out by the public relations men to try to stir up interest. His speech lost some of its freshness in this "packed" House because hon. Members were able to read it in The Standard earlier today —perhaps it needed a space-filler.
The hon. Gentleman believes that the GLC arts committee has done a wonderful job. His customary modesty forbids him to admit that he was once the chairman of that committee, but as usual he is sure that no one knows anything about the subject apart from him. He underestimated the greater people who went before him in the Labour movement in London and who played a major part in building the facilities on the South Bank, which he is now trivialising.
The hon. Gentleman conjured up a terrifying spectacle of the end of civilisation as we know it on the South Bank. That is not what the abolition of the GLC will mean. On the contrary, the Arts Council will take over the direct ownership and management of the South Bank. The paper which the hon. Gentleman saw contained another option, but that was what the Arts Council chose to do. No one is better placed to maintain and, I believe, improve the South Bank's position as a centre of international excellence of which Londoners can be rightly proud.
The hon. Gentleman asked several detailed questions, and I am grateful for his courtesy in giving me notice of them, about the future arrangements for the South Bank. I shall return later to what he says about the Arts Council's plan. I agree that the open foyer policy has not been a complete failure. The commercialisation of it has been

fairly good; as the hon. Gentleman said, he got in some better caterers. If he does not wish to have commercialisation on the South Bank, perhaps he should not have those good caterers; but I do not believe that that was what he meant. The policy has not been that much of a success. I spend a good deal of time on the South Bank, as I am sure does the hon. Gentleman, and I know that some of it is good and some bad. Some of it is scruffy — it is unnecessary to have those childish posters and political advertisements stuck up.
Some of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman gave are not impressive. Only about 5,000 first-time visitors have attended a concert as a result; and overall the number of regular attenders at concerts has dropped since 1982. There are pluses and minuses, and there is still a long way to go before the facilities are properly used. Whether the open foyer policy is continued after abolition is entirely a matter for the Arts Council. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts had a more ambitious target for the South Bank in the comparisons that he made with some of the events in the Lincoln centre and elsewhere.

Mr. Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: No: I think we had better continue.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's second question, the South Bank board will be set up some time after the abolition Bill has received its Second Reading. If it were set up before then, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accuse the Government of setting it up before the Bill had come before the House.
The future of Thames day must be a matter for the Arts Council. Some of the most successful occasions will undoubtedly find support in future. The London marathon is nothing to do with the GLC as a separate organisation is involved. I believe that at least one borough has offered already to support the marathon in future and to give it the necessary facilities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given assurances about that for the future.
The hon. Gentleman asked for assurances for the future of the Jubilee gardens. I am concerned about the present use of the gardens. They have hosted many demonstrations which have had nothing to do with the arts. The area has recently been used as a parking lot for a striking miner's caravan. We can expect the Arts Council, should Parliament decide that it should have the Jubilee gardens, to have a little more style.
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is worried. He and his colleagues at county hall must be wondering where to put their great pink birthday cake. This was another triumph for the GLC! It was forecast in a committee paper last March that 1 million visitors would see this object and unfortunately 950,000 of them have not turned up. Only 50,000 had come by the end of September. If we assume, charitably, a last-minute rush of another 25,000 in the remaining weeks that the cake is open, that still works out at a cost of £3·30 per visitor. I am sure that hon. Members, and perhaps even the hon. Gentleman, would agree that the £250,000 could have been spent in much better ways to help the arts.
The GLC's record on support for the arts generally in recent years is not all that good. It threatened to sell the pictures at Kenwood. It threatened to withdraw grants to the Royal Opera House development trust. It has attempted to blacklist artists for performing in South


Africa and in its latest piece of civic vandalism—I think that my use of "vandalism" is justified—it has served notice on the Arts Council to quit the Hayward gallery. Nothing could show more clearly the cheap and shoddy side of the GLC's arts policies.
The GLC has not been able to justify its action and nor has the hon. Gentleman. Councillor Peter Pitt, the hon. Gentleman's successor, who—this is a compliment to the hon. Gentleman— is a much less attractive figure than himself, as chairman of the GLC arts and recreation committee, has spoken of turning the Hayward into a "people's picture gallery". One of his colleagues has suggested a list of quite worthy and interesting groups which might use it such as the Obaala black arts gallery, the women's artists slide gallery and the Wandsworth photo co-op. Many of the groups are perfectly sensible and should have exhibition space, but the Hayward is exactly the sort of space that they do not need. It would be a complete waste to use an extremely expensive high-security building, of which there are not that many modern ones in western Europe, for such exhibitions. It is quite easy to find space for such groups.
If the GLC were to try to continue the Arts Council's type of exhibition programme—the Arts Council has mounted some fine exhibitions at the Hayward, many of which I have seen in recent years—it would have quite a job on hand. It has no expertise in that area and it would find it difficult to persuade the major overseas lenders to part with valuable work—they certainly would not do so at six months' notice. I am forced to conclude that the GLC's action at the Hayward has a great deal more to do with political spite than any coherent arts policy.
I take up the hon. Gentleman's latest attempt at scaremongering, which is to suggest that the Arts Council does not intend to take responsibility for the South Bank. That is nonsense. The council is a responsible body and we expect it to consider all the options that are set out in the paper to which the hon. Gentleman has referred before deciding how best to run the South Bank site. The council has rejected the option of an independent trust. It will be managing the South Bank from April 1986 and it is greatly looking forward to the challenge. It is naturally aware that this will be a major task and one that will not be made any easier by the attitude of the hon. Gentleman's friends in the GLC. Their childish refusal to release information about details of the South Bank operation — future bookings, for example—is a strange way to show their concern for the arts.
The Government are confident that the long-term future of the South Bank is in safe hands. Is it too much to ask of the hon. Gentleman that he should use his good offices to ensure that the immediate future is not threatened by a short-sighted political approach that will result in time being wasted and the use of delaying tactics? There has already been the rather childish refusal to provide information about the South Bank operation, and a political approach will damage the prospects for the future.
I hope that we can put aside the scares which we have been offered by the hon. Gentleman and which are part of

the same old story. We have not had serious worries expressed by the responsible arts people in the past few months because they know that matters are being dealt with properly. The House need have no doubt about the future of the South Bank.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister, as is customary now, is not directing his attention to answering any of the points. He might not take the arts seriously, but I do, and I do not appreciate the knock-about stuff that we are getting. He says that nobody in the Arts Council is particularly worried. I shall read him the opening sentence of the memorandum from the Arts Council, written by the regional director, who says:
I have been concerned for some months that Council has not yet taken the full measure of the situation that may arise for the arts in London should the Greater London Council be abolished.
Far from the GLC having done little for the arts, the GLC has been one of the best news stories for the arts and has done a damned sight more for the arts than the Government.

Mr. Waldegrave: The memorandum, which I have as well, shows that the Arts Council is well ahead of taking over its responsibilities and facing up to the considerable challenge that it will have. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about maintaining continuity for the arts, let him go back to his colleagues and tell them to let the Arts Council have the information that it needs instead of maintaining their campaign of political spite——

Mr. Banks: The council has not asked.

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman will say that if the information is asked for he will give it, I shall be most grateful.

Mr. Banks: I said that the Arts Council has not requested information from the GLC. Nor have the Government, which is rather strange when one considers the power that the Secretary of State took in the paving Act.

Mr. Waldegrave: We may get something helpful out of this debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that if the Arts Council asks for the information it will be given.

Mr. Banks: If the Arts Council asks the GLC for information, we shall see what it needs to know. Apparently, it needs to know a great deal, as do the Government.

Mr. Waldegrave: The arrogance of that remark is clear, and will be clear on the record. The Arts Council must have the informtion that it needs on bookings and so on to make a sensible policy for the future.
There need be no worries about the future of the South Bank. I pay tribute to some of the things that the GLC has done recently, but the hon. Gentleman over-rates some of the triumphs. Some things have been shoddy, and some, such as the Hayward gallery proposals, have been stupid, but the future of the South Bank complex as a whole will be safe in the hands of the Arts Council for the indefinite future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.